• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    eurobrat on One Tiny Mistake…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    riverdaughter on Evil people want to shove a so…
    campskunk on Evil people want to shove a so…
    eurobrat on D E F A U L T
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Tina Turner (1939-2023)
    jmac on D E F A U L T
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    Propertius on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    Propertius on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

What we had, and What we lost…

May 27: Hillary at the Brookings Institution telling it like it is

Our Hillary says it plain: The rich are not paying their fair share.

Ben Smith at Politico:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a rare foray into domestic politics today, offering her view that — given America’s high unemployment — wealthy Americans don’t pay enough taxes.

“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms,” Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institution, where she was discussing the Administration’s new National Security Strategy.

Now there’s someone who knows what she believes and doesn’t need to be, ahem, ‘prompted’ to say it.

You can see her make her remark, off-the-cuff, in the Q&A session at around the 57 minute-mark:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Hill makes a point to says she’s speaking only for herself and not as part of the Administration:

Clinton said the comment was her personal opinion alone. “I’m not speaking for the administration, so I’ll preface that with a very clear caveat,” she said.

But, Hillary isn’t just speaking for herself here. She’s speaking for me too, and I’m sure I’m not alone on that one.

She also cited Brazil as a model:

“Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they’re growing like crazy,” Clinton said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”

When I see news like this, I hear the line from Fleetwood Mac in my head… “In the stillness of remembering… What you had, And what you lost…”

111 Responses

  1. …and I repeat… {{{ sigh }}}

  2. Slightly OT….
    An article from the hill quoting Gov of PA Rendell:

    Rendell also noted a difference between Obama’s style and that of the last Democratic president, a famous micromanager: “If Bill Clinton was president, he’d have been in a wetsuit, you know, trying to get down to see the spill,” the governor said with a laugh.

    I think Hill would be there with him.

    • “If Bill Clinton was president, he’d have been in a wetsuit, you know, trying to get down to see the spill

      Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If I had my choice between a POTUS in a wet suit and one who doesn’t give a fuck…I pick the wet suit .

      • no, Rendell meant it as a compliment.

      • The big dawg would be so involved in this…
        because he has his policy and his politic in the best interests for us. The little gal/guy.
        Bill gets it.

        Rendell was a HUGE Hil supporter and he seems to only cheer on O with tepid reaction.
        Like a “good democrat”

      • “If Bill Clinton was president, he’d have been in a wetsuit, you know, trying to get down to see the spill,” the governor said with a laugh.

        Rendell sounds less like a “hound” and more like one of those wild pumas. 😉

    • perhaps, or more likely she would have been going from home to home talking to the families about how this was effecting them and what they needed done right away.

  3. Great catch, Wonk! I saw part of the speech on PBS, but of course the omitted this part.

    If only…..

    • Thanks, bb. Glad if I could help more people see it. I figured it wouldn’t get much play outside of the wingnuttery that sees socialism in their cheerios.

    • They omitted this part? Well, isn’t that interesting?

  4. You’re just bitter because Hillary was beaten by an “inadequate black male.”

    • Actually, I’m just envious that the world stage has Hillary and what we Americans have on the national stage is a whole host of inadequate Democrats.

      • Hell Yes! Thanks for posting this, it’s a pickup in a funky way. Makes me want to scream “Fuck It” at the top of my lungs, again.

    • “Inadequate” is right!

  5. OT– Ezra Klein says Obama will be impeached if the Repubs win majorities in Congress in Nov.


    • Poor Ezra, he’s boo-hooing up a storm. I miss the days when Obama was the magic man and everyone would fall in love with him, we’d all work together in our glorious bipartisan utopia, and Republicans would never be able to bring themselves to touch one precious hair on his political head. 😉 Being a President who provokes and impeachment seems downright divisive, it’s almost as if we gave up a competent POTUS for nothing.

    • So that’s the best sell the creative classers can come up with? If you don’t vote for a bunch of sellouts with the letter D by their names, the king of the sellouts will be impeached!

      Ok then. I won’t!

      • Not much of a sell, is it? I’m like, hell yeah, I’ll vote for the Republicans. Thanks for the idea Ez.

    • Good. That’s the best news I’ve heard in a while.

  6. Amazing, isn’t she?

    I am at 10 min mark and she probably looked at her papers 3 or 4 fimes. She is speaking extempore on a major national security policy announcement. Not reading from paper or teleprompt. And she goes on like this for an hour?

    • And her head doesn’t whip from side to side like she’s watching a tennis match either.

    • Have you seen her conversation with Google from 2007? She *is* amazing.

      • This is great, Wonk. Another great interview she did was with Jim Cramer during 08 campaign. He was throwing questions at her at a fast clip and she was coming right back with intelligent answers, not boiler plate. He got so excited because she was hitting back all his strong serves, he talked faster and louder, threw more questions, and she kept up with it. They go on like for about 15-20 min. Great video. She was so informative and so funny too. Cramer ate it up.

  7. Ooh, that’s pointed and Obie isn’t going to be happy. One of the major differences I see between them is that everyone, going back decades, is always trying to protect him and fluff him and hold his little hand and hand him things. With her, they’re always trying to shut her down, telling her to shut up, sabotaging her. So while he crumbles at the least little sign of adversity and compares his charmed life to major historical tragedies. But she knows from the outset that every obstacle under the sun will be thrown in her path, but it’s like, whatever, oh again, let’s get this done. Increasing taxes on the wealthy would throw the political establishment into turmoil, but I wouldn’t put it past her to get it done.

    • I firmly believe she would have gotten that done and a lot more. Her leadership could have made the difference in our way of life surviving. Probably why so many sold her out for the ridiculous empty suit we have.

  8. And you wonder why the big money went prospecting for a different “identity candidate” and then threw their support to him and the kitchen sink at her…Idiot B0bots missed the point then – and still miss most of it now.

  9. House votes to repeal DADT 234-194

    • if we had more oil kills, would we have more urgency to move the country forward on human rights? Pardon me for being cynical, but this urgency from DC (which I welcome regardless) didn’t seem to be there before May…

      • Without BP’s catastrophe, we’d still be waiting on that. It’s toss the left a bone day in DC for the House.

    • If DADT is repealed, does the UCMJ revert back to the prior statutes? Or are they eliminating all references to homosexuality in the UCMJ?

      • Excellent question. I wonder if the Congress has even considered that?

        • Probably not. For all of it’s faults, DADT decriminalized homosexuality in the military. This congressional “stunt” now may make homosexuality a court martial offense again.

          In the absence of changing the UCMJ, which is unlikely to get 60 Senate votes, Obama could issue an exec. order as CIC to halt the “findings” process of DADT. He’ll never do that, I guarantee.

          • This may turn out OK because I read that the bill passed by the House only allowed the Pentagon to change the regulations and remove DADT. So new regulations will apparently be written for the UCMJ. I hope!

          • That’s what I was wondering about. Taking away DADT without changing the millitary seems to take things back. Even since obama took office there have been soldiers discharged when they were outed.

  10. He Was Supposed to Be Competent Peggy Noonan is funny, in a Republican kind of way. From today.

    What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

    Thought we peeled off two years ago.

    • Never got on the O-express is more like it.

    • The MSM are like cockroaches… they sit comfortably in the dark and then 2 years later someone turns on the light and they start running away from right where they were all along.

    • Peggy N sounds like a concern troll, a little too gleefully lamenting the incompetence.

    • Excellent post, Wonk.

      “Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him.”

      It takes an outsider to to tell the truth we know so well. Some Democratic Obama bandwagonites know it, but cling to the bitter hope of denial that it will go away.

  11. OMG—-thank you for sharing this. What the hell is wrong with people-she is a national treasure.

    • You are very welcome. 🙂
      She is increasingly becoming an international treasure on top of a national one with each passing day.

    • Wonk this is wonderful – thank you. How could people turn their back on her?

      What is going on with her hair? Growing it for a “mom style” for the wedding???

  12. Why didn’t BO give a direct answer to the Sestak question at the presser today. He should have said, no that is not the case. The Congressman is mistaken.

    • Because the WH has got lawyers still running around figuring out just how to phrase his answer.

    • Especially since they’ve sent Durbin out to demand that Sestak answer in detail.

    • If Sestak rolls over for the WH and says “mis-spoke or taken out of context”, etc., he is as good as gone in the general election. A cave-in by Sestak would be equivalent to Martha Coakley flipping on the Health Care scam.

      • Yep. A roll over by Sestak is definitely a non-starter, if he wants to be a Senator.

        • I wouldn’t be surprised if he caves like everyone else has, tho. The entire party will declare war on him if he doesn’t. Either way he’d lose, but Jeebus. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes if O gets impeached.

    • Love this quote in WaPo, just out now.

      Sestak declined to say whether the alleged job offer was inappropriate and defended Obama’s integrity. “I think the president’s a pretty legitimate, you know, person,” he said.

      • Lol Oy! It sounds like he thought he could drop this bombshell and no one outside PA would take a blind bit of notice, including the President (and including the in-state Repubs). Once again, welcome to amateur hour.

        • In a 15-minute interview with the Capitol press corps Thursday, Sestak said the fixation with the story is an inside-the-Beltway phenomenon that does not translate into hurting his efforts to defeat Republican Pat Toomey in November. He said the ordeal has grown out of a single quip — answering “yes” and saying he was offered a “high-up job” — to a question posed by longtime Philadelphia TV newsman Larry Kane during a February interview.

          “Something happened last July, literally, hardly even remember it,” Sestak said of the offer. “All of a sudden, in this interview, someone asked a question . . . and I answered it up front. But I immediately said the same thing I said to you and haven’t deviated: Look, let’s move on, the rest is politics.”

          • But didn’t Sestak use the job offer story in his political ads? I heard he did. If so, then he did a LOT more than just mention it in some obscure interview.

            Backpedaling isn’t going to help him if he touted the “drop out” bribe in an ad.

          • Sestak never used the story in his political ads. He basically only ran two ads–both in the last month of the campaign: one was a bio ad and the other was showing Specter all chummy with Bush.

            By the way, Sestak sponsored two pieces of legislation with no co-sponsors as yet: one would prohibit automatic pay raises for Congress in 2010, the other would prohibit automatic pay raises for Congress in 2011. He has also sponsored legislation to help workers living on Social Security obtain part-time jobs. He’s more conservative than I am on a number of issues, but as far as trying to help normal people, he’s the real deal.

          • grayslady, thanks for the info.

          • grayslady, I agree – Sestak is pretty decent. I hope he just tells the truth and lets the chips fall. If he does that, he’ll win the seat IMO. If he caves and covers for the administration, he’s sunk.

      • You can’t make this stuff up.

      • “I think the president’s a pretty legitimate, you know, person,” he said.


  13. I love how she reminds them that when Bill left office , the books were balanced and there was a freaking SURPLUS. We so rarely hear of the Clinton surplus. You can see why they just couldn’t have another Clinton in office! They leave money in the Treasury instead of passing out endless contracts to their friends…who don’t do the work of course, requiring another brace of contracts to the same people and so on endlessly .

    • I will you why….this is the plan….its to run this country in the ground and break it and then the people will be ready for the NorthAmerican UNion without borders. Canada to Brazil…one country.

      • That would be kinda cool. Are we gonna have the army invade Mexico and annex it? That’s what we did last time but we only kept half their country.

        We annexed Canada back in the Seventies but we haven’t got around to telling them yet, so they still think they’re independent..

      • Right. It’d be kind of convenient, after all, to have the whole drug trade cycle within a single economy. Folks currently invested in oil could move their money into coca and poppy production.

        By the way, go look at a map. Colombia and Venezuela are also between here and Brazil. You think Hugo’s gonna roll for your asshat scenario?

  14. Nice post, Wonk. You’ve been on a roll!

  15. Hillary 2012.

  16. Hillary looks exhausted. Superwoman.

  17. Houston Chronicle update on the oil kill:

    May 27, 2010
    Top kill pauses, mud pumps stop, “bridging agents” next. *update*

    BP said in a briefing this afternoon the top kill operation will be taking a new turn as they will begin pumping “bridging agents” — essentially heavy rubber and other items that could help clog up the flow of oil through leaking equipment.

    BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the company stopped pumping mud around 11 p.m. Wednesday night, apparently to see if the weight of the many thousands of gallons of mud pumped into the well was enough to put a check on oil and gas in the reservoir.


    The pumping resumed at 6 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, says BP.

    There’s more at the link, with info from earlier if I’m reading the way it’s updated correctly.

    Also someone left a comment there with this link elaborating on bridging material:


  18. Another from the chron…. Feds lift ban on offshore drilling in shallow waters:

    The federal government is set to begin approving new permits for drilling in shallow waters, where less than 500 feet separate the seabed from the surface, even though the temporary ban on new deepwater drilling will continue for at least six months.

    “We will not have a moratorium in place with respect to shallow waters,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

    At a nationally televised news conference earlier today, Obama invoked the continued drilling ban several times, but he never mentioned that shallow-water permitting would go forward.

    Update: Environmentalist Mike Gravitz said Obama was making a “false distinction between the safety of drilling in deep versus shallow water.”

    “In fact, drilling in shallow waters is more risky for blowouts than drilling in deeper water,” said Gravitz, oceans advocate for Environment America. “Shallow water leases tend to be closer to shore, so if there is a spill, responders have a shorter time to react before oil hits marshes or beaches.”

    • How did I know it was going to turn out to be bs when I heard about the ban? Gee I must be psychic.

      • I’m guessing it helps to have a good BS detector that’s been well-sharpened over the last two years especially.

        • I’ll give him one thing, he’s consistent. It’s almost as if he’s incapable of doing any good, ever.

        • I’ve found that using the Costanza rule will give you a pretty good indication of what Obama is going to do.

          Whatever Obama says he’s going to do, expect him to do the opposite.

          Another good method is to assume in any given situation that Obama will:

          1. Do what’s best for Obama

          2. Do what’s best for his wealthy backers (Wall Street, health insurance CEO’s, etc)

          3. Kiss up to the wealthy and powerful

          4. Fuck over the rest of us.

    • Lot of good that longer time for response did us.

  19. Hey, whaddaya know–over at TL, Jeralyn outed freaky squeaky as a man (Thursday afternoon thread), though squeaks pretends to be a woman. The rumor about the iPad? That turns out to be true as well. Learn something every day.

  20. Wonderful News: Pediatricians now reject all forms of female genital mutilation

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral “pricking” procedure.

    “We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world,” said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

    • It gives real hope to know that the voices of us ordinary people still make a difference somewhere. And, there would be no better place for our voices to matter than when it comes to the status and rights of girls and women.

      Hoooray!! I am so happy to hear this. The AAP’s policy was so mortifying and unreal. What a wonderful newstory to start off this Friday.

      • Too, funny, but I fell asleep listening to Hillary…it was just too long a day and zunk I went. Thanks for the post, it is always good to see Hillary doing good things.

    • I got an email about that and apparently the policy was beginning to be a great blunder for the AAP and I don’t think the PR spin was working out for them in the US. I think this deserves a post! All the letters and all the blogging (getting the information out) paid off!

      So, Go Wimmin Folk GO! Silent NO MORE… 🙂

  21. Thank you for this post Wonk The Vote!

    A much needed dose of Leadership Clinton! And, the AAP announcement couldn’t have been a more perfect compliment to everything that she stands for! Freedom from oppression, equality for all and the use of smart power in overthrowing ignorance!

  22. Dylan Ratigan: Oil Spill, Govt & Corporations (Isn’t this a TV guy at MSN? That Net FLICKs ad must be paying off.)

    • President Obama is getting TOUGH…there is a Thirty Day Review…’scratching my head’…hemmm, the BP Oil Spill has been going on for over 30 days!?!

    • Sorry. I know Dylan is working hard to shape his new populist persona, and he’s saying all the right things, including the rousing dig at the end about media and journalism. But he’s a salesman, and a good one. He dishes easy to chew populism because it returns him ratings and popularity. He spent years at CNBC pumping up big finance, then morphed into someone who rails against big finance ever since the market crash. He is consistent about one thing though. He is following the money, which in media comes with ratings, which comes from viewership, both size and type, which is us.

      The media, both entertainment and news, is paid for by marketing corporations who spend 150 billion annually to advertise alongside content, and cable companies who spend another 100 billion annually to bring the content to subscribers. When it comes to using the media, these marketing corporations don’t care as much about controlling the governing politics of the nation (separate media regulations) as they do about making money from consumers and subscribers. And consumers and subscribers have far more leverage on the makeup of the content (including opinion news) that they choose to watch (or object to) than people realize.

      Dylan is following his consumers more than he’s following instructions from his bosses or his conscience, because that’s where the money is, that’s who ultimately pays his salary.

      • To be clear, I’m questioning his motives, not his current positioning. If what he says now makes sense for me, then cool. He can come along.

  23. BP Oil Spill: Fishermen Ask How They Will Live

    Fishermen Jim and Ange work and live on a mid-size shrimping boat docked on Grand Isle, Louisiana. They’ve been through more hardships than many of us can imagine. Each time, they’ve got through because they had the one thing on which they could always count: the water and its bounty. And now it’s gone.

  24. James Carville Slams Obama on Oil Spill: ‘We’re About to Die Down Here!’ Stephanopoulos spins

    • Do you all remember when CNN wouldn’t let Carville on to advocate on behalf of Hillary because he could articulate the differences so well? I recall one exchange with Simon Obama’s rep and Carville just put it all into perspective.

      Oddly enough, after the primary’s they let Carville on to advocate on behalf of Obama? The latter really ticked me off, because Gov., Edward Rendell and Carville were two people that could cut through the bull and say straight up why we needed leadership like Hillary.

      Of course there was one person that could advocate for Hillary and her leadership like no other and that was the late wonderful lady, congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

      Hardball W/Chris Matthews, Minute-By-Minute, N.H.Primary Day

  25. HRC took her 1999 compensation from Rose Law Firm on 12/31/1998 to avoid higher tax rates. I call super massive BS.

    • Just as any other middle-income person would do, given the chance.

      The Clintons’ money is all post-White House, troll.

  26. I can’t be the only one thinking that economic growth is a dead end, literally. We have to find better arguments for fairer taxation, because ultimately this one is worthless.

    • Well, fairness on its own is a good argument for fairer taxation. Then there is the deficit, the need for more stimulus in a potentially deflationary environment, social programs from health and education to social security, the fact that rich people and companies are parking their current bailed out richness in cash and not investing in people. She was speaking to an informed audience at Brookings, so she probably didn’t need to spell it all out.

    • I knew I’d get a comment like that, which is why I provided the video in the post and directed to where she said it (57 minute mark). Here is what Hillary said in context…

      First here is the question she was asked:

      MODERATOR: Kemal Dervis will have the last question. He’s the director of our Global Economy and Development Program.

      QUESTION: Madam Secretary, in the spirit of the synthetic strategic approach you presented to us today, I’m going to come back to the deficit and the economic issue a little bit. But one of the things I think around the world people expected and are expecting and were so enthusiastic about with the election of President Obama and of your Administration is more stress on the average family, on the medium income unemployment, and on fighting poverty. And in this balance – and I’m an ex-secretary of the treasury in my own country – but in the balance between fiscal austerity but also attention to employment, to poverty reduction, in the U.S. itself the unemployment rate remains close to 10 percent. In southern Europe now, there’s a major new social problem emerging. In the U.S. in the first eight years of this century, two-thirds of the income gains accrued to one percent of the population.

      So in terms of this synthetic approach, both for the U.S. being strong at home but also worldwide, how do you see the balance? Or how do you think we can manage the balance between fiscal responsibility, which is, of course, very necessary, but also attention to the most vulnerable, the poorest segments of both American population and worldwide population, and the need still to strengthen this recovery, to strengthen employment, which remains a key issue?

      And, here was Hillary’s response:

      SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s a very important and complex question. And I’ll answer it in this way because I think you have posed a very stark choice. It’s the choice that President Obama and other leaders have had to be making every day. How much stimulus, how much restraint, how much to stimulate employment directly, how much to try to invest in larger kinds of job creation entities such as the stimulus in high-speed rail or whatever it might be. It’s a – getting it right is not easy. And the fact that Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, specialized in the Depression came in very handy because you can understand how you can get the balance wrong even with the best of intentions.

      So I’ll just make a few comments. One, I think it is really important for countries to be focused on stimulating long-term sustainable employment. And in the Recovery Act which was passed last year, there are some very big investments in clean energy technology, high-speed rail, and the like, that will not bear fruit for a long time, probably, but are absolutely necessary to be made. If the United States does not once again become the leading innovation nation, it’s hard to know where we’re going to find the jobs that we have to produce for people. And yet if we do it wrong, or we do it artificially as in some countries are in my view doing, that will lead to protectionism.

      We had a very frank conversation, led by Secretary Geithner, with our Chinese friends in Beijing. They see a very stark problem. They have tens of millions of people they’re still trying to get out of absolute poverty, so they want to have an innovation agenda that would in effect capture companies’ intellectual property and require companies to operate inside China in a way that could undermine the long-term success of those companies. So we say no, that’s not a good way to do it. But the debate about how to do this is going to be front and center of international economic dialogue.

      I also believe you put your finger on one of the biggest international problems we have. And I’ll just – this is my opinion; I’m not speaking for the Administration so I will preface that with a very clear caveat. The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues, whether it’s individuals, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are. And I go back to the question about Brazil. Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere. And guess what? It’s growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it – to our regret, in my opinion.

      So my view is that you have to get many countries to increase their public revenue collections in order to make investments that will make them richer over the long run. You have to work hard on the innovation new technology agenda to try to create new forms of jobs. You have to strike the right balance, which is not easy, and different countries probably require different approaches between stimulus and restraint. I think you have to, even during crisis periods, look at big works projects in order to employ people. But it’s difficult to do that in some of the advanced countries because the kinds of jobs that those work projects produce are not always the jobs that people are willing to take.

      And one of the things that benefited the United States dramatically in the ‘90s and the first decade of this century was immigration. I mean, we filled a lot of jobs that really fueled the economy as a lot of our population aged. And so immigration has to be somehow in the mix, but it is becoming an increasingly volatile subject, not just here but everywhere. So there is no, like, one perfect formula. But we know the elements that are necessary. And trying to get that right balance is very challenging.

      And I think that we have to also work on changing attitudes, and that requires leadership. We need a robust market economy that is truly as free as possible everywhere but with appropriate and effective regulation everywhere. And we need rich people everywhere to understand that many of them benefited greatly by the investments of prior generations in their own families or their own countries and that they have to be part of helping to keep that growth rate and that economic progress going for future generations.

      And we have to change attitudes among individuals. Nick Kristof wrote a column last week sometime talking about how a lot of really poor people around the world have money but they don’t choose to spend it on educating their children. And he talked about one family in a poor African village that had enough money to pay the $10-a-month cell phone bill for the husband and the wife but not enough money to keep their son in school. So we have to have leaders in countries and companies and religions who focus on the needs of children, the next generation, because educating kids, keeping them healthy, family planning, these are all part of dealing with the long-term economic imbalance in the world.

      And then obviously, there are specific issues on currency and the like. But on a sort of broad stroke, I think leaders are trying to balance all of these competing considerations and I think that our country is pulling out but we’re still going to face a large unemployment figure for a long time. And what we’re doing now has to help whittle that down for the future.

      Hillary’s point was that fair taxation can be done without being punitive. The goal should be about more people having more opportunities to succeed, not anyone having less. I also agree with her that the rich should remember how they got there and pay it forward.

      Rigid socialism is not a cure-all for every problem–but social darwinism has always been anathema to me. Hillary is talking about finding that right balance of solutions that strives toward lifting more and more of us up, rather than pushing anyone down.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: