Contribute
CONNECT:

research

Americans Cannot Afford Clinton's Economic Policies

- August 8, 2016

On Spending, Taxes, Trade, The Debt, And Energy Clinton Would Offer More Of The Same Failed Policies

TOP TAKEAWAYS

  • Clinton has proposed a massive $2 trillion spending increase but has failed to say how exactly she would pay for it.
  • Clinton's tax hikes fall far short of paying for her spending plans, increasing the national debt by over a trillion dollars while hurting economic growth, killing 300,000 jobs, and lowering wages for all Americans in the process.
  • While Clinton claims she would oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, she has spent her entire career hitting the campaign trail in opposition to trade deals only to back them later, from NAFTA to KORUS to CAFTA.
  • Clinton would harm American workers, businesses, and consumers by attacking U.S. energy production, stringently regulating fracking, expanding Obama's war on coal, and backing his signature job-killing EPA regulations.
  • Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office projects current Clinton-Obama policies will result in $9.3 trillion in new debt in the next ten years, Clinton has offered no plan to reduce the deficit.

CLINTON'S SOLUTION TO THE OBAMA ECONOMY: DOUBLE DOWN ON OBAMA'S ECONOMIC POLICIES, ADDING TRILLIONS IN NEW SPENDING, AND RAISING TAXES

The Wall Street Journal's James Freeman: "For Everyone Dissatisfied With The Obama Economy, The Clinton Agenda Promises To Make It Just A Bit Worse." "So for everyone dissatisfied with the Obama economy, the Clinton agenda promises to make it just a bit worse." (James Freeman, "Hillary's $191 Billion Tax Increase," The Wall Street Journal. 1/26/16)

Clinton Has Proposed A Total Of $1.977 Trillion In New Spending Over The Next Ten Years

 

 

Clinton Has Proposed A Total Of $1,976.58 Billion In New Spending Programs Or Expanded Spending Over Ten Years . (Reuters, 11/29/15;The Briefing, Accessed 8/10/15; The Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15; The Associated Press , 7/27/15; The Hill, 11/12/15;The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/15;American Federation Of Teachers, 11/9/15; National Education Association, 2/2/15; The New York Times , 9/2/15; Correct The Record, Accessed 10/12/15; The Briefing¸ Accessed 11/30/15;Puerto Rico Healthcare Crisis Coalition, Accessed 12/1/15;The Briefing, 8/26/15;Federal Register, 12/12/14;The Briefing, 8/26/15;USDA, 10/2/15;The Briefing, Accessed 11/2/15; Department Of Justice, Accessed 11/30/15; The Briefing, Accessed 8/26/15;USDA, 1/12/15;The Briefing, Accessed 11/2/15;Reuters, 4/23/15;GAO, 03/14,USA Today , 12/22/15, U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, 2/16; The Briefing 2/12/16,The Briefing 4/1/16,Congressional Research Service, 5/5/15; The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget, 6/27/16; The Washington Post , 7/6/16)

During An April New York Daily News Interview, Clinton Admitted She Has Not Figured Out How To Pay For Every One Of Her Spending Increases, Saying She Is Still Looking At How To Pay For Her Proposed National Infrastructure Bank. QUESTION: "So if I understand you correctly, if you look at your proposals for college costs and for family leave, for infrastructure investments..." CLINTON: "Well, that's a little bit different, because infrastructure investment, I'm still looking at how we fund the National Infrastructure Bank. It may be repatriation. That's one theory, or something else." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks In An Interview With The New York Daily News Editorial Board , New York, NY, 4/11/16)

"In Many Cases" Clinton "Does Not Lay Out Specifically How She Would Pay For The New Programs And Expanded Spending." "In many cases, Clinton's presidential campaign does not lay out specifically how she would pay for the new programs and expanded spending, calculated by McClatchy after an examination of her 17 proposals to date." (Anita Kumar, Clinton Plan: $1 Trillion In New Spending, $1 Trillion In New Taxes," McClatchy, 12/22/15)

But On The Campaign Trail, Clinton Continuously Makes The Claim That She Will Be Able To Pay For All Of Her Nearly $2 Trillion In New Spending. CLINTON: "But Senator Sanders and his campaign have said they're going to roll out how he would pay for all of this before the caucus in Iowa and I for one will be eager to see it, because I have been laying out how I will pay for everything." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1/12/16)

Click To Watch

"Clinton Has Repeatedly Said That Her Tax Plan Would Cover All Of Her Spending Proposals… Though She Has Not Provided A Lot Of Details." "Clinton has repeatedly said that her tax plan would cover all of her spending proposals, which include investing in infrastructure, clean energy and medical research and making college more affordable, though she has not provided a lot of details." (Tami Luhby, "Conservative Group: Clinton Tax Plan Would Hit Top 1%, Economic Growth," CNN, 1/26/16)

Instead Of Paying For Her Reckless Spending, Clinton's Tax Plan Falls Far Short, Adding At Least A Trillion To The Deficit Over The Next Decade

According To An Analysis By The Tax Foundation, Once The Economic Impacts Of Clinton's Tax Plan Are Factored In, Clinton's Proposals Would Only Increase Tax Revenues By $191 Billion Over The Next Ten Years. "However, the plan would end up collecting $191 billion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

  • The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Headline: "Hillary's $191 Billion Tax Increase" (James Freeman, "Hillary's $191 Billion Tax Increase," The Wall Street Journal, 1/26/16)

The Wall Street Journal's James Freeman: The Only Way Clinton's Taxes Would Generate As Much Revenue As She Claims Is "If One Ignores The Impact Of Her Plan On Economic Growth." "Hillary Clinton's proposed tax hikes would increase federal revenue by $498 billion over a decade if one ignores the impact of her plan on economic growth-and $191 billion if the resulting decrease in economic output is taken into account. That's according to a new study by the Tax Foundation that will be released later this morning." (James Freeman, "Hillary's $191 Billion Tax Increase," The Wall Street Journal, 1/26/16)

  • "After Taking Weaker Growth Into Account," Clinton's Tax Plan Only Raises Tax Revenues By $191 Billion. "Overall, her proposals would raise tax revenue by $498 billion over the next decade, though that estimate is reduced to $191 billion after taking weaker growth into account." (Tami Luhby, "Conservative Group: Clinton Tax Plan Would Hit Top 1%, Economic Growth," CNN, 1/26/16)

Under Clinton's Tax Plan The "Smaller Economy Would Reduce Wages," Which Would Lead To Reduced Tax Revenues. "If we account for the economic impact of the plan, it would end up raising $191 billion over the next decade. The slightly smaller economy would reduce wages, which would narrow the revenue gain from the individual income tax changes to about $173 billion and reduce payroll tax revenue by about $80 billion over the next decade." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

Clinton's Massive Tax Increases Will Hurt Economic Growth, Kill 300,000 Jobs, And Lower Wages For All Americans

Clinton's Tax Hikes "Would Hurt The Entire Economy, Dragging Down Income At All Levels." "Though Clinton's proposals target the wealthy, the Tax Foundation said today that the increases would hurt the entire economy, dragging down incomes at all levels." (Brian Faler, "Analysis: Clinton Proposed Almost $500 Billion In Tax Increases," Politico, 1/26/16)

The Tax Foundation's Analysis Found Clinton's Tax Proposals Would "Reduce The Economy's Size By 1 Percent." "According to the Tax Foundation's Taxes and Growth Model, Hillary Clinton's tax plan would reduce the economy's size by 1 percent in the long run." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

  • Clinton's Tax Proposals Would Result In "311,000 Fewer Full-Time Equivalent Jobs." "The plan would lead to 0.8 percent lower wages, a 2.8 percent smaller capital stock, and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. The smaller economy results from somewhat higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

When Accounting For The Economic Impact Of Clinton's Tax Plan, It Would Reduce American's After-Tax Incomes By An Average Of 1.3 Percent. "On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

  • Clinton's Tax Proposals Would "Lead To 0.8 Percent Lower Wages." "The plan would lead to 0.8 percent lower wages, a 2.8 percent smaller capital stock, and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. The smaller economy results from somewhat higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)
  • Americans That Are In The Bottom 90% Of Taxpayers Would See A Reduction In After-Tax Income Of At Least 0.9 Percent Over The Long-Term. "On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

The Wall Street Journal's James Freeman: Even Though Clinton Claims Her Tax Plan Targets The Rich, The Tax Foundation Analysis Shows It Would Hurt "Incomes For All Taxpayers Due To Slower Growth." "And although the Clinton tax hikes are ostensibly targeting the rich, with proposed changes such as a new surtax on high incomes and a Buffett Rule that sets a minimum tax rate on high earners, the Tax Foundation projects a decline of at least 0.9% in after-tax incomes for all taxpayers due to slower growth." (James Freeman, "Hillary's $191 Billion Tax Increase," The Wall Street Journal, 1/26/16)

  • "All Americans Would See Their Incomes Slip Once Reduced Economic Growth" Under Clinton's Plan Is "Factored In." "These provisions would decrease after-tax income of the top 1% by 1.7% and of the top 10% by 0.7%, according to the Tax Foundation, and all Americans would see their incomes slip once reduced economic growth is factored in." (Tami Luhby, "Conservative Group: Clinton Tax Plan Would Hit Top 1%, Economic Growth," CNN, 1/26/16)

WHILE CLINTON CLAIMS SHE WOULD OPPOSE THE TPP TRADE DEAL, SHE HAS SPENT HER CAREER BACKING TRADE DEALS THAT SHE OPPOSED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

On The Campaign Trail Clinton Says She Would Reject "Bad Trade Deals…Including The Trans-Pacific Partnership." CLINTON: "We'll say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which does not meet my high bar for creating good paying jobs." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Raleigh, NC, 06/22/16)

Click To Watch

#1 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

FLIP: As Secretary Of State, Clinton Took "A Leading Part In Drafting The Trans-Pacific Partnership." "She's pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China's shadow. She's also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors." (Elizabeth Dwoskin and Indira Laksmanan, "How Hillary Clinton Created A U.S. Business-Promotion Machine," Bloomberg, 1/10/13)

  • As Secretary Of State In November 2012, Clinton Called TPP The "Gold Standard" In Trade Agreements, Saying It Includes "Strong Protections For Workers." CLINTON: "So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Techport Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 11/15/12)

Click To Watch

FLOP: Once Campaigning For President, Clinton Publicly Announced Her Opposition To The TPP. "After months of delicately avoiding expressing an opinion on the controversial trade deal, Mrs. Clinton said the agreement in its current form did not meet her high bar for protecting American workers, the environment and advancing national security… But while Mrs. Clinton's opposition to the trade pact could do much to appease Democratic voters and labor unions that have seized on the deal as a symbol for the perils of globalization, her decision to repudiate a major legislative goal of Mr. Obama's - one she initially supported - carries significant political risks." (Amy Chozick, "Hillary Clinton Opposes Obama's Trade-Pacific Trade Deal," The New York Times , 10/7/15)

#2 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

FLIP: In Her Book Living History, Clinton Praised NAFTA, Calling It An Example Of The Economy "Reaping The Benefits, Not The Burdens Of Globalization." "Creating a free trade zone in North America- the largest free trade zone in the world- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization." (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History, 2003, p. 182)

Click To Watch

FLOP: In August 2007, Clinton Claimed That "For Many Years" She Had Said "NAFTA And The Way It's Been Implemented Has Hurt A Lot Of American Workers." QUESTION: "Let's move on to another important topic for this audience in particular, the subject of trade. Senator Edwards had touched on this, Senator Clinton. Over the weekend, this past weekend, you expressed some disappointment that NAFTA, in your words, did not realize the benefits that it was promised - it promised, rather. How would you fix it?" CLINTON: "Well, I had said that for many years, that, you know, NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn't get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA's a piece of it, but it's not the only piece of it." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)

#3 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)

FLIP: In 2012, Clinton Called The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement A "Historic Milestone That Will Lead To Even More Trade And Investment Between Our Two Countries." CLINTON: "Today, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) enters into force, marking an historic milestone that will lead to even more trade and investment between our two countries. KORUS will provide new market access opportunities in Korea's dynamic trillion dollar economy for U.S. exporters, creating jobs here at home while increasing opportunities for Korean companies in the United States. This agreement is another example of this Administration's commitment to deepening our economic engagement throughout the world." ( Press Release, "U.S., Korea Free Trade Agreement Takes Effect," U.S. State Department, 3/15/12)

FLOP: Once Campaigning For President In 2015, Clinton Announced That She Opposed The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. CLINTON: "I think that there are still a lot of unanswered questions, but for me, it really comes down to those three points that I made, and the fact that we've learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years. Sometimes they look great on paper. I know when President Obama came into office, he inherited a trade agreement with South Korea. I, along with other members of the Cabinet, pushed hard to get a better agreement. We think we made improvements. Now looking back on it, it doesn't have the results we thought it would have in terms of access to the market, more exports, et cetera." (PBS's "News Hour," 10/7/15)

#4 Colombia Free Trade Agreement

FLIP: In 2008, Clinton Opposed A Free Trade Agreement With Colombia, Pledging To Defeat It And Claiming She'd Do "Everything I Can" To Reject It. "Speaking about the Colombia trade deal at a Washington meeting of the Communications Workers of America union, Clinton proclaimed: 'As I have said for months, I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.'" ("Clinton Reiterates Opposition To Colombia Trade Pact," Los Angeles Times, 4/9/08)

FLOP: As Secretary Of State, Clinton Said "We Are Absolutely Committed To Passing The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement." CLINTON: "And of course, we are absolutely committed to passing the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to open new markets and create jobs and opportunities for both of our peoples." (Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks With Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin, Washington, DC, 5/31/11)

#5 Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)

FLIP: Clinton, On The Day CAFTA First Passed The Senate In 2005: "This Is A Sad Day For Supporters Of Free And Fair Rules-Based Trade." CLINTON: "This is a sad day for supporters of free and fair rules-based trade. Our relationship with our Central American neighbors is a critical one. The right CAFTA deal would strengthen ties between the U.S. and these nations. I urge the Administration to reopen the CAFTA negotiations and re-establish the broad, bipartisan coalition for trade."(Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 6/30/05, S. 7731)

FLOP: As Secretary Of State, Clinton Touted Her Efforts Relating To CAFTA And Said "We've Worked To Promote Growth And Create Jobs Through … Multilateral Pacts Like NAFTA And CAFTA-DR." CLINTON: "In our region, prosperity has widened in recent decades. We've worked to promote growth and create jobs through sound fiscal policy, bilateral trade agreements, multilateral pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, and institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank." (Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Pathways To Prosperity Ministerial, San Jose, Costa Rica, 3/4/10)

Clinton Has Left The Door Open To Flip Back On The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Shortly After Her TPP Flip-Flop In October 2015, Clinton Told The Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce That She Was "Against [TPP] Now" But Was Open To Flip-Flopping Back If "Changes" Were Made. MODERATOR: "So you're evolving on the issue?" CLINTON: "No, I am against it now, but we'll see whether there is any kind of significant changes. I mean look if the congress tomorrow adopted my entire you know working wage agenda I'd be pretty excited about that, but I think that will have to wait 'til I'm actually there as President." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce, 10/15/15)

Click To Watch

In July, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, "Longtime Best Friend To The Clintons," Said He "Believes Hillary Clinton Will Support The TPP Trade Deal If Elected President." "Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, longtime best friend to the Clintons, said Tuesday that he believes Hillary Clinton will support the TPP trade deal if elected president, with some tweaks." (Annie Karni, "Clinton Friend McAuliffe Says Clinton Will Flip On TPP, Then Walks It Back," Politico, 7/26/16)

  • McAuliffe: "Once The Election's Over, And We Sit Down On Trade" I Expect Clinton Will Support TPP. "'I worry that if we don't do TPP, at some point China's going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this," he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. 'Once the election's over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.' Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: 'Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.'" (Annie Karni, "Clinton Friend McAuliffe Says Clinton Will Flip On TPP, Then Walks It Back," Politico, 7/26/16)

CLINTON WOULD ATTACK U.S. ENERGY PRODUCTION, HARMING AMERICAN WORKERS, BUSINESSES, AND CONSUMERS

Under A Clinton Presidency, There Wouldn't "Be Many Places In America Where Fracking Will Continue To Take Place"

During A March 2016 Democratic Debate, Clinton Said Fracking Was "Not Sufficiently Regulated," And Under A Clinton Presidency, There Wouldn't "Be Many Places In America Where Fracking Will Continue To Take Place." CLINTON: "So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that's the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met." (Hillary Clinton, CNN Democratic Primary Debate, Flint, MI, 3/6/16)

Click To Watch

In Opposing Hydraulic Fracturing, Or "Fracking," Clinton Is Taking A Stand Against "A Technique That Is Essential For Most Of The Country's Oil And Gas Production." "Both contenders for the Democratic party's nomination in this year's US presidential election have taken strong stands against hydraulic fracturing, a technique that is essential for most of the country's oil and gas production." (Ed Crooks, "Clinton And Sanders Talk Tough On Fracking," The Financial Times, 3/7/16)

A 2016 Report From IHS Concluded That The Fracking Boom Had Added $190 Billion To U.S. GDP, Contributed To 1.4 Million Jobs, And Produced $156 Billion In Additional Disposable Income. "The U.S. economy experienced significant gains in 2015: IHS estimates that economic benefits from increased domestic shale gas production and the accompanying lower NG prices include contributions of $190 billion to real gross domestic product (GDP), 1.4 million additional jobs, and $156 billion to real disposable income." (Brendan O'Neil, Phil Hopkins, Julie Gressley, "The Economic Benefits of Natural Gas Pipeline Development On The Manufacturing Sector," IHS Economics, 5/16)

The Wall Street Journal Editorial: As Secretary Of State Clinton Promoted Fracking, But Now She Wants To "Regulate Out Of Existence The Livelihoods Of Tens Of Thousands" Of Americans. "This is a new look for Mrs. Clinton, who promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State. In 2010 she popped into Krakow to announce a global shale initiative, and in 2012 she dropped by Bulgaria to encourage the parliament to end a fracking moratorium. But now that she wants to be President she would regulate out of existence the livelihoods of tens of thousands in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, and across the U.S.A." (Editorial, "Clinton Against American Energy," The Wall Street Journal, 3/7/16)

  • The Wall Street Journal Editorial: As A Result Of "The Fracking Boom," Americans Have Saved $32 Billion In Energy Costs Since 2012, With Most Of The Benefits Going To Low-Income Families. " The average price of natural gas plummeted some 60% between 2008 and 2012 thanks to the fracking boom, and families saved $32 billion in 2012 through lower energy bills, according to Mercator Energy. The poor benefit most, as low-income families must spend more of their earnings on energy bills. Yet Democrats who profess to care for the poor want to disavow lower-cost energy." (Editorial, "Clinton Against American Energy," The Wall Street Journal, 3/7/16)

USA Today Editorial: Fracking Has "Created Jobs, Boosted Domestic Manufacturing And Brought The USA Closer To Energy Independence." "Voters deserve a more thoughtful answer. Fracking has gone from an exotic drilling technique to a commonplace procedure that has spurred a remarkable U.S. energy boom and now produces about half of all U.S. oil and gas. This boom has created jobs, boosted domestic manufacturing and brought the USA closer to energy independence." (Editorial, "Keep On Fracking: Our View," USA Today , 4/18/16)

Clinton Has Pledged To "Put A Lot Of Coal Miners And Coal Companies Out Of Business," Embracing Obama's War On Coal

At A March Democrat Town Hall, Clinton Said "We're Going To Put A Lot Of Coal Miners And Coal Companies Out Of Business." CLINTON: "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." (CNN, Democrat Town Hall, 3/13/16)

Click To Watch

Clinton Backs Obama's Moratorium For Coal Production On Federal Lands, With A Spokesman Saying She Would "See [It] Through To Conclusion As President." "In response to Obama's announcement, Clinton spokesperson Ian Sams emailed, 'Hillary Clinton supports President Obama's efforts to ensure our energy priorities align with our imperative to combat climate change, including today's announced review which she would see through to conclusion as president.'" (Rebecca Leber, "How Obama Inserted The 'War On Coal' Into the 2016 Primary," New Republic, 1/17/16)

Clinton Backs Obama's Job-Killing And Costly Clean Power Plan

Clinton Has Vowed To Defend And "Build On" Obama's Anti-Coal "Clean Power Plan" If Elected President, Calling It A "Significant Step Forward." "Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged Sunday that if elected she will build on a new White House clean energy program and defend it against those she called 'Republican doubters and defeatists.' Clinton was the first 2016 candidate to respond to the ambitious plan that President Obama will debut on Monday. Details of the program, which aims to cut greenhouse-gas pollution, were released over the weekend. The new regulation will require every state to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants. In a statement Sunday, Clinton called the plan 'a significant step forward in meeting the urgent threat of climate change.'" (Anne Gearan, "Hillary Clinton Promises To Build On Obama Climate Plan As President," The Washington Post , 8/2/15)

  • "Clinton Called Obama's Plan 'The Floor, Not The Ceiling,' And Said She Would Go Further." (Anne Gearan, "Hillary Clinton Promises To Build On Obama Climate Plan As President," The Washington Post , 8/2/15)

Based On EPA Data, The American Action Forum Estimated The Obama Administration's Finalized Regulations On Carbon Emissions Would Close 66 Power Plants, Eliminate 125,800 Coal Jobs, And Cut The Coal Industry In Half. "The final rule for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was released by the Obama Administration this past August and is a direct attack on the coal industry. According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, the final plan, supported by Sec. Clinton, will shutter 66 power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. All of these figures are based on EPA data. The same study shows that using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48 percent." (Kimberly VanWhye, "'Revitalizing Coal Communities': A $30 Billion Consolation Prize", American Action Forum, 11/13/15)

An Analysis By NERA Economic Consulting Projected That Obama's Carbon Regulations Will Cost As Much As $292 Billion. "NERA Economic Consulting has produced an analysis of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) recently finalized by the Obama Administration, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants by 32 percent nationwide. NERA's calculates the CPP could add $29 billion to $39 billion in costs to utilities or as much as $292 billion in added costs between 2022 and 2033, exclusive of added transmission, distribution and natural gas infrastructure costs." (H. Sterling Burnett, "Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits," The Heartland Institute , 12/2/15)

  • "As A Result Of These Added Costs, Consumers In 40 States Could See Double-Digit Electricity Price Increases, And 28 States Could Face Electricity Price Spikes Greater Than 20 Percent." (H. Sterling Burnett, "Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits," The Heartland Institute , 12/2/15)
  • "Across The Nation, Electric Power Consumers Will Likely See Their Average Annual U.S. Retail Electricity Rate Increase Rise Between 11% Per Year To 14% Per Year Between 2022 And 2033, Above What It Would Have Been Absent The CPP." (H. Sterling Burnett, "Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits," The Heartland Institute , 12/2/15)

Clinton Wants To Keep American Energy Resources "In The Ground," Opposing Offshore American Energy Development And Saying She Would Halt Development On Federal Lands

In February 2016, Clinton Said She Opposed Offshore Oil And Gas Drilling In The Atlantic. " On Monday, as she lagged in the polls leading up to the New Hampshire primary, she indicated that she would ban offshore oil and gas drilling along the Atlantic coast. A Greenpeace campaigner in the crowd at a Clinton campaign event asked if she would 'stop oil drilling in the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Gulf?' Clinton replied, 'I've already said that I will stop in the Arctic and the Atlantic.'" (Ben Adler, "Clinton Comes Out Against Atlantic Offshore Drilling, Angling To Win Green Voters Away From Sanders," Grist , 2/9/16)

  • "Clinton's Latest Comments Appear To Have Clarified Her Views: No On Arctic Drilling, No On Atlantic Drilling, And - Because She Didn't Mention It - Presumably Status Quo On Gulf Drilling." (Ben Adler, "Clinton Comes Out Against Atlantic Offshore Drilling, Angling To Win Green Voters Away From Sanders," Grist , 2/9/16)

In October 2015, Clinton Said She Opposes American Offshore Drilling Because We Need "To Keep More Fossil Fuels Under The Ocean And In The Ground." CLINTON: "We have to move away from fossil fuels including gas, but that gas can be a useful bridge, especially as we move away from coal, and we move away from dirtier oil and some of the really bad alternatives. And we want to keep more fossil fuels under the ocean and in the ground. That's why I'm against arctic drilling and why I'm against offshore drilling because I don't think we should start that." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Town Hall, Keene, NH, 10/16/15)

Click To Watch

In February 2016, Clinton Told Climate Activists That She Supports Imposing A Moratorium On All Fossil Fuel Development On Federal Lands, Not Just Coal. "Griffin Sinclair-Wingate, a 350 Action organizer, approached Clinton after the New Hampshire debate on Thursday night and asked her, 'Would you ban extraction on public lands?' 'Yeah, that's a done deal,' Clinton said, as though her position were obvious. Afterward, she told another 350 activist that she agrees with 'where the president is moving. No future extraction.' Adam Greenberg asked her in a third video on Friday while campaigning in New Hampshire, 'Would you end all oil, coal, and gas leases on federal lands?' Clinton said, 'I want to impose a moratorium ... because there are legal issues you have to go through, you know all of that, but I would support a moratorium.'" (Rebecca Leber, "Hillary Clinton's Leftward Shift On Climate," New Republic, 2/6/16)

CLINTON HAS OFFERED NO PLAN TO TAME THE GROWING NATIONAL DEBT

In December 2015, When Asked By A Student How She Would Handle The National Debt, Clinton Offered No Solution And Only Cast Blame. QUESTIONER: "I travel all across the country asking, teaching kids all about the importance of making sense and being financially responsible. So, I'm asking all the presidential candidates about our 18 trillion dollar national debt. So, specifically what will you do? Thank you." CLINTON: "Well, for a little bit of historic context, and congratulations on your achievement and particularly paying attention to this issue. Let's have a little historic context here. When my husband left the White House we had a balanced budget and surplus, and if we had stayed on, if we had stayed on a responsible fiscal path we could have, had we c hose, paid off our entire national debt. Unfortunately, that was not the path selected, by then President George W. Bush. Where he slashed taxes for the wealthy, he waged two wars without raising a penny to pay for them, the first time in American history that happened, and took his eyes off the financial markets and the mortgage markets and we know what happened, and we fell into a Great Recession and it required spending money as you often have to in times of great economic contraction, to be able to keep the economy going, to try to get it back on track. And indeed now the economy is growing again, our deficit is shrinking, but we are left with this large national debt. So, I think we should get back to sensible economic policies that put people to work, raise incomes, and begin to lower our national debt. And if you want to know the kinds of things I would do, please go to my website, Hillaryclinton.com. Also go and look at what my husband did because it worked. I'm not running for his third term, I'm running for my own first term, but I think it's important that people appreciate our economy does better when we have a democrat in the White House, and we will be able to do more to deal with the national debt, when I am President." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Women's Economic Opportunity Summit, Manchester, NH, 12/3/15)

Click To Watch

The Obama Administration Has Nearly Doubled The National Debt, Adding Over $8.7 Trillion Since 2009

Under The Obama Administration, The Debt Has Increased By 80 Percent, A Total Of $8.7 Trillion, From $10.627 Trillion In 2009 To $ 19.374 Trillion As Of August 2, 2016. ("Daily History Of The Debt," U.S. Department Of Treasury, Accessed 8/4/16)

  • The Washington Times Headline: "$20 Trillion Man: National Debt Nearly Doubles During Obama Presidency" (Dave Boyer, "$20 Trillion Man: National Debt Nearly Doubles During Obama Presidency," The Washington Times, 11/1/15)

Under Current Clinton-Obama Economic Policies, The National Debt Will Grow By Another $9.3 Trillion Over The Next Decade

The Congressional Budget Office: "The Cumulative Deficit Projected For The 2017-2026 Period Is $9.3 Trillion." ("Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026," Congressional Budget Office, 3/16)

CBO Projects That Unless Current Laws And Policies Are Changed, The Deficit Will Increase "In Nearly Every Year Over The Next Decade," Resulting In A National Debt Of 86 Percent Of GDP In 2026. "If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would increase (in dollar terms) in nearly every year over the next decade and, CBO projects, by 2026 it would be considerably larger as a share of the nation's output (gross domestic product, or GDP) than its average over the past 50 years (see Figure 1). Debt held by the public also would rise significantly from its already high level, reaching 86 percent of GDP by 2026." ("Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026," Congressional Budget Office, 3/16)

CBO: "Debt That High-And Heading Higher-Would Have Significant Negative Budgetary And Economic Consequences." "One important effect of such deficits would be a burgeoning amount of debt held by the public. In 10 years, debt held by the public would equal 86 percent of GDP -more than twice its average over the past five decades. Debt that high-and heading higher-would have significant negative budgetary and economic consequences." ("Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026," Congressional Budget Office, 3/16)

  • "The Probability Of A Fiscal Crisis In The United States Would Increase." "The probability of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase. Specifically, the risk would rise of investors' becoming unwilling to finance government borrowing unless they were compensated with significantly higher interest rates. If that occurred, interest rates on federal debt would rise suddenly and sharply relative to rates of return on other assets." ("Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026," Congressional Budget Office, 3/16)

Previous post

New Wave Of Stories Fuels Clinton Scandals

Next post

Americans Cannot Afford Four More Years Of This
Republican National Committee

Connect With Us

Republican National Committee
Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
News & Videos
  • 310 First Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
  • 202-863-8500

By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive calls and SMS/MMS msgs, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number from the Republican National Committee. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & conditions/privacy policy apply 80810-info.com.

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com

By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive calls and SMS/MMS msgs, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number from the Republican National Committee. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & conditions/privacy policy apply 80810-info.com.

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com