Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton appeared to be having another senior moment during a campaign stop in Omaha, Nebraska on August 1st, when she proudly announced that she was going to raise taxes on the middle class (and her supporters actually cheered).
Clinton made a pledge early on in her campaign, and referenced the pledge often in her campaign speeches, that she would not support any tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 per year.
Clinton still claims she wants to go after what she calls the “super-rich,” but looking closer at her many tax hike proposals, perhaps her claim to raise taxes on the middle class was really not so far off.
For instance, Clinton endorsed a proposal to create a three cent per ounce tax on sodas and other sugary drinks as a means to fund the expansion of government programs.
During an appearance in Philadelphia in April, Clinton gave her OK to Mayor Jim Kenney’s idea for the new tax:
“I’m very supportive of the mayor’s proposal to tax soda to get universal preschool for kids. We need universal preschool and if that’s a way to do it, that’s how we should do it.”
In addition, Clinton gave her nod to a payroll tax. At a Democratic Presidential Forum at Drake University in Des Moines, Clinton was directly asked if she would veto a payroll tax:
Moderator Alicia Menendez:“Democrats have introduced a plan that Senator Sanders supports that you’ve come out against because it is funded by a payroll tax. If that were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?”
Hillary Clinton: “No. No.”
In July, Clinton’s campaign Chairman John Podesta said that if Congress came forward with a carbon tax plan, the Clinton campaign would “take a look at it.”
Such a tax would certainly support the Democratic Party Platform:
“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet our climate goals.”
Clinton has said she would be “all for” a 25% national gun tax, and she continues to this day to advocate for restrictions on guns.
Any of these added taxes — soda and sugary drink tax, national gun tax, carbon tax, or payroll tax — would hit the middle class hard, and would be in direct opposition to Clinton’s so-called “pledge.”
So one can only garner from her tax hike plans that either (a) Hillary Clinton’s pants are on fire, (b) she actually is suffering from mental health issues as a result of a traumatic brain injury (link to article: Is Hillary Clinton Physically and Mentally Fit for Office?), or (c) she is merely attempting to fool voters once again.
Would the middle class be able to survive a Clinton presidency?