Clinton, Obama Similar On The Economy

Washington Post: Both Democratic Candidates Offer Similar Visions And Proposals

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut.

---

Hillary Rodham Clinton slammed Barack Obama during an appearance at a General Motors plant here on Thursday for what she charged was a lack of a record of achievement on the economy. But as both Democratic presidential candidates announced comprehensive economic plans this week, they advocated similar visions for what has become the single biggest issue for voters in the 2008 campaign.

Clinton and Obama both promised that they would make the tax code more middle-income-friendly and would protect consumers from threats -- including predatory credit card companies and rapacious college lenders. Both candidates condemned corporate tax breaks that they say send jobs overseas. Both pledged to protect homeowners and said they would repeal President Bush's upper-income tax cuts while extending those for the middle class. Both promised to rein in credit card companies that arbitrarily raise interest rates, sending families into a downward spiral of debt.

"I've been looking for ways to differentiate these two, and it hasn't been easy," said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. This week's economic speeches do not "make it a whole lot easier," he added.

Despite the similarities, Clinton, eager to generate positive news about her campaign, went on the offensive during her tour of an automotive plant. She sharpened her line of attack against Obama and what she argues is his lack of substance. "Over the years, you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches," Clinton told a group of factory workers. "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank. Speeches don't fill your prescriptions."

She continued: "That's the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches. I offer solutions."

But even with the economy teetering on the edge of a recession and both Democrats hoping to win union-heavy Ohio -- not to mention the endorsement of former senator and rival John Edwards (N.C.) in the days ahead -- neither Clinton nor, a day earlier, Obama swerved into an overt populist appeal. Where Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) castigated "Benedict Arnold CEOs" during his White House bid four years ago, Clinton and Obama seem to be channeling the Bill Clinton of 1992.

"I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas," Obama told GM employees on Wednesday, just hours after the company offered thousands of worker buyouts. "But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements."

The relative restraint has been somewhat surprising, party economists say. Ohio Democrats have been pushing them toward a harder edge, especially on trade, but so far to no avail. "We want them to address job losses, the outsourcing issue, renegotiating trade agreements and the mortgage crisis," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio). "But we're hearing a lot of generalities."

The economic clouds are darkening rapidly. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned the Senate budget committee on Thursday that the economic outlook has worsened, sending stock prices tumbling.

"They're operating in an environment where for the first time on record, we could be going into a recession with household incomes actually lower than they were the last time we were in recession," said Jason Furman, a Brookings Institution economist who advised Kerry. "The economic pressures are just that much greater."

Still, in choosing government as the tool to deliver health care, protect consumers, and direct investment in energy and infrastructure, both Democrats are setting up a general-election fight that will follow a familiar partisan argument about what the size and scope of government should be.

Said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee: "We will have a spirited and respectful discussion of the issues, but, believe me, I believe that I and my party, which is a center-right, conservative outlook, both philosophically and in legislative action, will prevail over the big-government, big-spending Democrats."

For Clinton, the new emphasis on the economy allowed her to push policies Thursday that align with the core of her message -- that she would help ordinary voters.

Her proposals are tailor-made for an industrial heartland hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs and crippled by mortgage defaults and rising debt. She would rescue the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a federal-local program for small manufacturers perpetually targeted for elimination by Bush, and would immediately limit credit card interest rates and stop credit card companies from raising those rates without warning and from applying higher rates to old transactions.

She would also establish a Financial Product Safety Commission, similar to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to crack down on abusive lending practices in the credit card, auto loan and mortgage markets.

To lower college tuition costs, Clinton said that she would crack down on lenders that shower college financial aid officers with gifts, stock options and trips in exchange for steering students to captive lending markets.

Many of those plans mirror Obama's promises. To pay for some of them, both candidates said they would eliminate tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. The current corporate tax code allows companies to defer taxes indefinitely on profits earned at facilities overseas. In 2004, Kerry proposed subjecting those earnings to taxation immediately but using the proceeds to lower the domestic corporate income tax, a plan designed to tack him to the economic center. Clinton and Obama see no reason for such gestures of moderation.

Clinton did offer far more detail on how her initiatives would be funded. She backed up her promise to invest tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy technology by handing the bill to the oil companies. They could either invest in renewable energy on their own or finance the federal effort, largely funded by imposing real royalties on drilling on public land and by repealing recent tax breaks.

Likewise, Clinton said she would end the "carried interest" loophole, a quirk in the tax code that has allowed private equity and hedge fund managers to pay tax rates of just 15 percent on millions of dollars in income. Attempts to plug that loophole have also run into bipartisan opposition from lawmakers flooded with Wall Street campaign cash. But Democratic economists have been in a forgiving mood toward both candidates.

"There's definitely some hand-waving here," Bernstein acknowledged, "but for people running for office, it's folly to ask precisely what they're going to do and precisely how you're going to pay for it."

[jpspec]

After reading that Edwards might support Hillary, I tried to find out is this was true. No luck. However, in the process, I did discover that it was Edwards who FIRST used the word %u201Cchange%u201Din the primaries and Not Obama. Later, when Obama finally came out with %u201Chis%u201D Heath Plan, I thought it was interesting that it was so much like the one that Hillary had prepared earlier. Now today, I read the following blog. If true, then it is important that the voters know that Obama is guilty of plagiarism.


"Obama''s (economic) plan. is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen. He basically took Clinton''s words and Clinton''s policies and called them his own. If I were a professor I''d give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school," said Kevin Hassett, Sen. John McCain''s economic adviser and the Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute

[tulcak]

In conclusion, I think many conservatives do not understand the motives of the progressive groups (these include the democrats,the cross-over republicans, the reagan democrats, the black voters, white male voters - yes, the majority of white male voters are not conservative republicans, independents ). They do not understand that these groups view Mr. McCain as just another bush. The progressive groups gave bush a second try in 2004 but quickly realized their mistake. That is why in 2006 (even with our undeniably broken voting process) the democrats gained the majority in both houses. Americans want a change; what they want is unification.

[tulcak]

Two, the cross-over republicans, the reagan democrats, the black voters, white male voters, independents - the majority of the voters in each of these groups will vote for Mr. Obama. They see Senators Clinton and McCain as "business as usual". People in general are not satisfied with our political process and want to see fundament change. Not just a change in the cast. They also feel that it is long over due for a black person to be president. People don''t want to be black, white, female, male, republican, democrat... they simply want to be Americans and be united in serving and loving our country. Democrats, and the other groups I mentioned above don''t want a one party country as the more conservative republicans do. And many people still remember that the ideology of both parties were not as far apart as they are now and remember bi-partisinship being the norm in Washington. Senator Clinton is a divisive leader just as bush is and voters are weary of the partisinship and devisive and exclusive nature of current American politics. Three, many Americans see putting a black man into the white house as a first step in reconciliation with the rest of the world and feel that bush has severly damaged our international relations. People want to be united as Americans and united with the rest of the world. And they feel that serious problems like global warming can only be solved by intense international cooperation.

[tulcak]

I think a lot of conservatives are going to be absolutely shocked when Mr. Obama wins the presidential election in november. And he will win and win big against Mr. McCain. It won''t even be close and all the dirty tricks the GOP plays will be rendered completely ineffective.

Why will Mr. Obama win big? Several reasons.

One, he is inspiring Americans across party lines and across the pigeon-holes of race, age, and gender. He is having the same effect that JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy had on the people of this country. People like Mr. Obama only come around rarely and when they do, people respond.

[libra127]

Well, Bob, Obama''s words ARE cheap. If people are willing to pay alot of money for Bill Clinton''s words and wisdom, that should tell you something! LOL. So who is "demented" ? Just might be you.

I don''t find Hillary to be "shrill" and "divisive" at all. She has far more depth, intellect, and experience than Obama has. I think she will be a great President.

[eddynewhope]

Hillary is a shrill and divisive. Her slogan du jour is "not talk but solutions". I think the Clintonites are missing the irony that the "solutions" bit is just a new political slogan - just "talk" in fact. LOL

[bobacorn]

I saw Hillary on TV last night spewing about how ''''words are cheap''''. Boy is she demented. I know Bill and her probably don''''t have the most communicative relationship in the world (after that whole Monica thing), but surely she knows that her husband has been for years collecting $250,000 an hour as his speaking fee from anyone stupid enough, or crooked enough, to pay him that kind of money. Those are some pretty expensive words. After all, that $5 million that she loaned her lame-o campaign had to come from somewhere (although we wont ever know where because she wont release the documents describing her and Bills income). Im sure this is because she knows that Americans would be shocked at what these documents would show. At this point, I am just praying to myself that the number of people in America stupid enough to allow this woman the chance to pilfer the country for four more years is very, very small.

[demwatcher]

Similar in that they will tax us into mediocrity.

What your retirement funds, they will rape those too.

[libra127]

A good book to read is "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Clinton" by Carl Bernstein. It is a fair and balanced account of her life and is a very well-written.

[b-easy63]

In the end, there can be no doubt that Hilary will do or say anything to win--but what also is not in doubt that the chances she will deliver all that she promised is almost nil and when she has what she wants--if voters don''t like being betrayed--as far as Hilary is concerned--tuff titttty.


As for Hilary being the "make it happen" candidate--name on thing, that Hilary has made happen.

And the economy Bill presided over that was successful had more to do with forced budget cuts and teh Gramm Rudman balanced budget law and Bush Sr''s taxes than anything Bill did. About the only thing Bill did was NAFTA (which is killing America now) and NOT veto all the budget cutting bills of the GOP controlled Congress we should also credit him with not spending all the money collected from Bush Srs'' tax raising of 1992--and for extra wealth chock it up to the wholesale pimping of American companies and the dot com industry NOT to Bill Clinton and most definitely NOT to Hilary Clinton.