{"id":13800,"date":"2016-09-26T14:44:30","date_gmt":"2016-09-26T14:44:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/?p=13800"},"modified":"2016-09-26T14:46:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T14:46:25","slug":"hillarys-economically-clueless-plans-will-create-poverty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/2016\/09\/26\/hillarys-economically-clueless-plans-will-create-poverty\/","title":{"rendered":"Hillary’s Economically Clueless Plans Will Create Poverty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hillary’s Economically Clueless Plans Will Create Poverty<\/h2>\n

Because of my disdain for the two statists<\/a> that were nominated by the Republicans and Democrats, I\u2019m trying to ignore the election. But every so often, something gets said or written that cries out for analysis.<\/p>\n

Today is one of those days. Hillary Clinton has an editorial in the New York Times<\/em> entitled \u201cMy Plan for Helping America\u2019s Poor<\/a>\u201d and it is so filled with errors and mistakes that it requires a full fisking<\/a> (i.e., a \u201cpoint-by-point debunking of lies and\/or idiocies\u201d).<\/p>\n

We\u2019ll start with her very first sentence.<\/p>\n

The true measure of any society is how we take care of our children.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"I realize she (or the staffers who actually wrote the column) were probably trying to launch the piece with a fuzzy, feel-good line, but let\u2019s think about what\u2019s implied by \u201chow we take care of our children.\u201d It echoes one of the messages in her vapid 1996 book, It Takes a Village<\/em><\/a>, in that it implies that child rearing somehow is a collective responsibility.<\/p>\n

Hardly. This is one of those areas where social conservatives and libertarians are fully in sync<\/a>. Children are raised by parents, as part of families.<\/p>\n

To be fair, Hillary\u2019s column then immediately refers to poor children who go to bed hungry, so presumably she is referring to the thorny challenge of how best to respond when parents (or, in these cases, there\u2019s almost always just a mother involved) don\u2019t do a good job of providing for kids.<\/p>\n

\u2026no child should ever have to grow up in poverty.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A laudable sentiment, for sure, but it\u2019s important at this point to ask what is meant by \u201cpoverty.\u201d If we\u2019re talking about wretched material deprivation, what\u2019s known as \u201cabsolute poverty,\u201d then we have good news. Virtually nobody in the United States is in that tragic category (indeed, one of great success stories in recent decades is that fewer and fewer people around the world<\/a> endure this status).<\/p>\n

But if we\u2019re talking about the left\u2019s new definition of poverty<\/a> (promoted by the statists at the OECD<\/a>), which is measured relative to a nation\u2019s median level of income, then you can have \u201cpoverty\u201d even if nobody is poor.<\/p>\n

For the sake of argument, though, let\u2019s assume we\u2019re using the conventional definition of poverty. Let\u2019s look at how Mrs. Clinton intends to address this issue.<\/p>\n

She starts by sharing some good news.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2026we\u2019re making progress, thanks to the hard work of the American people and President Obama. The global poverty rate has been cut in half in recent decades.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So far, so good. This is a cheerful development, though it has nothing to do with the American people or President Obama. Global poverty has fallen because nations such as China<\/a> and India have abandoned collectivist autarky and joined the global economy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And what about poverty in the United States?<\/p>\n

\n

In the United States, a new report from the Census Bureau found that there were 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty in 2015 than just a year before. Median incomes rose by 5.2 percent, the fastest growth on record. Households at all income levels saw gains, with the largest going to those struggling the most.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is accurate, but a grossly selective use of statistics.<\/p>\n

If Obama gets credit for the good numbers of 2015, then shouldn\u2019t he be blamed for the bad numbers between 2009-2014<\/a>? Shouldn\u2019t it matter that there are still more people in poverty in 2015 than there were in 2008? And is it really good news that it\u2019s taken Obama so long to finally get median income above the 2008 level, particularly when you see how fast income grew during the Reagan boom<\/a>?<\/p>\n

We then get a sentence in Hillary\u2019s column that actually debunks her message.<\/p>\n

\n

Nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience a year in poverty at some point.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t know if her specific numbers are accurate, but it is true that that there is a lot of mobility in the United States<\/a> and that poverty doesn\u2019t have to be a way of life.<\/p>\n

Hillary then embraces economic growth as the best way of fighting poverty, which is clearly a true statement based on hundreds of years of evidence and experience<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2026one of my top priorities will be increasing economic growth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"But then she goes off the rails by asserting that you get growth by spending (oops, I mean \u201cinvesting\u201d) lots of other people\u2019s money.<\/p>\n

\n

I will\u2026make a historic investment in good-paying jobs \u2014 jobs in infrastructure and manufacturing, technology and innovation, small businesses and clean energy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Great, more Solyndras<\/a> and cronyism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And fewer jobs<\/a> for low-skilled workers, if she gets here way, along with less opportunity for women (even according to<\/a> the New York Times<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\n

And we need to\u2026rais[e] the minimum wage and finally guarantee\u2026 equal pay for women.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The comment about equal pay sounds noble, though I strongly suspect it is based on dodgy data<\/a> and that she really favors the very dangerous idea of \u201ccomparable worth<\/a>\u201d legislation, which would lead to bureaucrats deciding the value of jobs.<\/p>\n

Then Hillary embraces a big expansion of the worst government department<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2026we also need a national commitment to create more affordable housing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And she echoes Donald Trump\u2019s idea<\/a> of more subsidies and intervention in family life.<\/p>\n

\n

We need to expand access to high-quality child care and guarantee paid leave.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And, last but not least, she wants to throw good money after bad into the failed Head Start program<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2026we will work to double investments in Early Head Start and make preschool available to every 4-year-old.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Wow, what a list. Now perhaps you\u2019ll understand why I felt the need to provide a translation<\/a> of her big economic speech last month.<\/p>\n

The moral of the story, based on loads of evidence<\/a>, is that making America more like Europe is not a way to help reduce poverty.<\/p>\n

P.S. The only other time I\u2019ve felt the need to fisk an entire article occurred in 2012 when I responded to a direct attack<\/a> to my defense of low-tax jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

Republished from Dan Mitchell’s blog<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Daniel<\/p>\n


\nDaniel J. Mitchell
\n<\/a><\/h5>\n

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.<\/p>\n

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n