- The Washington Times - Thursday, April 20, 2006

The ballroom was packed with a who’s who of business when Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat, addressed the Chicago Economic Club last week. No doubt about it, this was the address of a presidential hopeful. But unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the eyelids grew heavy as she droned on and on.

Sleep, it seems, was better than suffering through this odd and curious presentation. On the one hand, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged a growing economy, a stock market at historic highs, strong productivity and profits and low unemployment. On the other hand, she called for big-government investment in infrastructure and heavy health-care and education spending. These two hands don’t go together.

The senator argued, “Tax cuts are not the cure-all for everything that ails the American economy,” and that instead we need the “right tax system [and] the right investment, including infrastructure… decisions and policies that only all of us acting together through our government can make to set the stage for future prosperity.” The italics, unfortunately, are mine.

So what we have here is a strong plea for a government-directed economy. This is something that once was called industrial planning and targeting, at least until the dismal economic performances of France, Germany and Japan totally discredited those terms. But for Mrs. Clinton, government planning is back. Citing a recent report by New York financier Felix Rohatyn and former Sen. Warren Rudman, Mr. Clinton is calling for a “national investment authority” to rebuild the nation. This in her view will solve all our problems related to airports, highways, bridges, hurricanes, and lord knows what else.

She speaks as though Congress didn’t already spend a fortune on the recent highway bill, replete with corrupt budget earmarks that totaled a cool $30 billion in 2005.

Ironically, while Mrs. Clinton wants to revive big-government spending, a number of respected policy analysts are writing about making public highways private. Topping their list are the Chicago Skyway, the Indiana Turnpike, and toll roads in Texas and Oregon, toll truck lanes in Virginia and Atlanta. These private ventures would pay for themselves and would substitute market decisions for government planning.

The Reason Foundation is chock full of similar ideas, including private-sector road and highway plans in California, where voters just rejected a $68 billion infrastructure package because of a political history of pilfered taxpayer funds.

In Chicago, Mrs. Clinton also engaged in a bit of class warfare, telling the assembled businesspeople: “America did not build the greatest economy in the world because we have rich people. Nearly any society has some of those.” Without exactly saying it, she clearly implied tax increases on the rich and a large redistribution worthy of any centrally planned economy.

Hasn’t Mrs. Clinton noticed the worldwide spread of free-market capitalism that has become such an enormous wealth creator across the globe — including Eastern Europe, India, China, and the rest of Asia? The economic growth principles of higher after-tax returns for work and investment, deregulation to limit government’s reach, and the privatization of government-run companies have become almost commonplace following the Reagan-Thatcher revolution of 25 years ago. But Mrs. Clinton would turn back the clock in ways even her husband didn’t support. She defines her goals as “a middle class life, education, health care, transportation and retirement.” But all this is nothing more than a massive dose of government spending and regulating — a sure prescription for humongous taxes and a declining economy.

No wonder the Chicago ballroom started to snooze. Mrs. Clinton’s ideas electrified the audience about as much as a broken plug attached to an old land-line phone.

Why not employ the tax code to reward success rather than punish it? What about investor-owned savings accounts for health care, retirement and education? Why not put pro-market consumer choice, rather than government, at the center of the 21st-century economy? How about setting the fiscal stage so the nonrich can get rich?

Two weeks ago I was in the Oval Office with President Bush and a handful of financial journalists. The president spoke to us about his growth policies and priorities, such as making tax relief permanent, keeping the tax rate on dividends and capital gains low, maintaining lean budgets, and expanding free trade.

This vision is in deep contrast to the one being set forth by Hillary Clinton. The president places the risk-taker and the entrepreneur at the center of economic growth; the presidential candidate sees government as the driving force of the economy.

It may well be that the booming American economy is still the greatest story never told. But the reality is that low-tax free-market policies are triumphing here and around the world. It makes one wonder, What planet is Hillary Clinton living on?

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide