Clinton promising new bridges, roads and free college, but she can’t pay for it
Hillary Clinton is going to build roads, new bridges, and give free college to everybody – and make the millionaires pay for it.
There’s one problem, though. Her math doesn’t add up.
“Seeking to paint rival Donald Trump as an ally of Wall Street and Democrats as champions for the middle class, Hillary Clinton on Wednesday touted an economic plan that relies heavily on tax increases for major U.S. companies, Wall Street firms and rich Americans,” The Washington Times reports.
“At a rally in Cleveland, Mrs. Clinton made no bones about the fact that her tax platform centers on raising more revenue to pay for billions of dollars in new spending, including her plan to offer free college to virtually all Americans, make one of the largest investments in history in infrastructure, raise the national minimum wage and underwrite other progressive goals,” the Times reports. “Mrs. Clinton’s tax plan would raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 per year, and she has said she would pursue new taxes on corporations and penalties for companies that move jobs abroad.”
Various outlets – from the Republican National Committee on the right to The Washington Post’s editorial board on the left – have done the math and have put the cost of Clinton’s agenda at over $1 trillion in new spending over a 10 year time frame.
So can Hillary come up with $1 trillion in 10 years by raising taxes on millionaires and employers?
Even The Washington Post, who’s never met a tax hike they didn’t like, is calling Clinton a liar.
“There is simply no way that the federal government can meet its current fiscal commitments, plus the increased demands of an aging population, and provide the new forms of middle-class relief and business tax relief Ms. Clinton promises, while tapping only the top 3 percent of earners,” the Post’s editorial board writes.
Even those who served with Clinton in the Obama administration say her plans would require massive tax hikes on the middle class.
“[E]very advanced country that has this kind of expansive role of government in the economy pays for it with substantially higher tax burdens on middle income people.,” National Review quotes University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, a former Obama adviser.
“Every one of the big welfare states in Europe, for example, has a VAT/sales tax in the 20–25 percent range and has high income tax rates that apply to large segments of the population, not just the top. Ordinary workers in those countries bear a larger share of the government bill than we do in the U.S., not a smaller share. Could you turn the U.S. into a Sweden-style social democracy without having the broadly based, high taxes they have in Sweden? Not really, no,” Goolsbee admits.
You can have low tax rates that promote prosperity and economic growth, or you can have high tax rates to fund a bloated welfare state that suppresses innovation and cripples the economy. But you can’t have both.
Even liberals admit Hillary Clinton’s math doesn’t add up.
And she’s hoping you aren’t listening.