Contribute
CONNECT:

research

Clinton's Double-Down Economics

- June 20, 2016

Despite Americans Feeling Left Behind Under Obama's Economy, Clinton Has Decided That The Country Needs More Of The Same Failed Policies

TOP TAKEAWAYS

  • Hillary Clinton's economic policies amount to nothing more than four more years of Obama's failed tax and spend agenda, with tax increases that would further harm economic growth and hurt Americans' incomes.
  • Clinton has repeatedly pledged to fully pay for at least $1.3 trillion in new federal programs and increased spending, but her tax increases fall over $1 trillion short of that total.
  • As a senator, Clinton's penchant for tax and spend policies led her to vote to raise taxes on individuals making as little as $41,500 per year in the middle of a recession.
  • Clinton has embraced Obama's failed economic legacy, giving him an "A" for his policies and saying he does not "get the credit he deserves."
  • But the American people know the real Obama legacy: a declining middle class, stagnant economic growth, and fewer, lower paying jobs.
  • With Clinton's plan to tax and spend and Obama's failed legacy, it is no surprise that voters are overwhelmingly saying they trust Trump over Clinton on economic issues.

__________________________________________________________________

Today, Clinton Will Give A Speech In Ohio "That Will Contrast" Her Economic Policies With Presumptive Republican Nominee Donald Trump's. "On Tuesday, she plans to deliver a speech in Columbus, Ohio, that will contrast her proposals to lift middle-class incomes with Donald Trump's business record, which she will argue is characterized by self-interest at the expense of others." (John Harwood, "Hillary Clinton To Add Jacob Liebenluft, Obama's Long-Time Economic Adviser To Campaign Team," CNBC, 6/20/16)

CLINTON'S ECONOMIC POLICIES: TAX AND SPEND, HURT AMERICAN WORKERS AND THE ECONOMY IN THE PROCESS

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 Pledged A Massive $1.3 Trillion In New Federal Spending

Clinton Has Proposed A Total Of $1.338 Trillion 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, The Briefing 2/12/16, The Briefing 4/1/16)

But Despite Proposing Mammoth Increases In Federal Spending, "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)

  • "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)

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)

When Accounting For The Impact Clinton's Policies Will Have Toward Harming The Economy And Reducing Revenue, Clinton's Tax Hikes Would Raise Only A Fraction Of The New Spending She Has Proposed

On The Campaign Trail, Clinton Continuously Makes The Claim That She Will Be Able To Pay For All Of Her $1.3 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

According To An Analysis By The Tax Foundation, Once The Economic Impacts Of Clinton's Tax Plan Are Factored In, The Tax Foundation Concluded Her Proposals Would 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)

  • Under Clinton's Tax Plan "The Slightly 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)
  • "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)

Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Proposals Would Harm Investment To A Degree That Despite A Higher Tax Rate, The Government Would Actually "Lose Revenue," Leading To $374 To $409 Billion In Reduced Federal Revenues Over The Next Decade. "We estimate that Clinton's proposal to alter the schedule for long-term capital gains would end up losing $374 billion on a static basis. The higher rate for capital gains in the medium-term (assets held between two and five years) would push people to realize their capital gains later. Overall, this would reduce the number of realizations, and even with higher rates, the policy will lose revenue. Dynamically, the policy would lose slightly more revenue ($409 billion) due to its small impact on the cost of capital." (Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler, "Details And Analysis Of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals," Tax Foundation, 1/26/16)

The Effects Of Clinton's Massive Tax Increase: Economic Contraction, Job Losses, And Lower Wages

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 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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

  • 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)

AS A SENATOR, CLINTON VOTED TO RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, EVEN IN THE MIDST OF THE RECESSION

Clinton Voted In Favor Of A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes In 2008, Which Would Have Impacted Individuals Earning As Little As $41,500 And Couples Making $83,000. (S. Con. Res. 70, Vote #85: Concurrent Resolution Agreed To 51-444: R 2- 44; D 48-1; I 1-0, 3/14/08, Clinton Voted Yea)

  • The Budget Resolution That Raised Income Taxes For Individuals In The 25 Percent Tax Bracket, Who At The Time Featured Individuals With A Taxable Income Of $41,500 And A Married Couple Making $83,000. "What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent… So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000." (Joe Miller, "The $32,000 Question," FactCheck,org, 7/8/08)

BY DOUBLING DOWN ON OBAMA'S POLICIES, CLINTON IS ATTACHING HERSELF TO A LEGACY OF ECONOMIC STAGNATION, WITH A SHRINKING MIDDLE CLASS AND AN ANEMIC RECOVERY

Clinton Has Embraced Obama's Economic Policies, Saying He Deserves An "A" For His Handling Of The Economy And Doesn't "Get The Credit He Deserves"

In October 2015, Clinton Gave The Obama Administration An "A" For Its Overall Performance, Including The Clinton-Obama Economy. CLINTON: "I'd give him an 'A.' I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for saving our economy from falling into a great depression, for saving the auto industry which represents millions of jobs up and down the supply chain, for beginning the crackdown on Wall Street abuses with Dodd-Frank, for getting the Affordable Care Act passed, for really being as responsive as he could possibly be given the obstructionism that he faced with the Republicans in Congress." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks In An Interview With The Boston Globe, Keene, NH, 10/17/15)

Click To Watch

Clinton Has Proudly Stated That She Believes Obama Doesn't "Get The Credit He Deserves" For The State Of The U.S. Economy. CLINTON: "And, getting the economy to work better, getting our government to be more effective and productive in producing results, building on the progress that President Obama made it -- remember, he inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Recession, and then he had to make sure it didn't fall into a depression. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for making sure that did not happen. We are going to make that case. We are going to make that case throughout the country. I hope, effectively. I'm counting on that." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Townhall, Portsmouth, NH, 12/29/15)

Click To Watch

The Majority Of Americans Believe The U.S. Economy Is "Getting Worse" And Disapprove Of Obama's Handling Of The Economy

According To A May Poll, 52 Percent Of Americans Disapprove Of The Way Obama Is Handling The U.S. Economy. (American Research Group, 1,100 RS, 2.6% MoE, 5/17-20/16)

According To A May Gallup Poll, 58 Percent Of Americans Believe The U.S. Economy Is "Getting Worse." (Gallup, 3,549 RS, 1% MoE, 5/9-15/16)

In April, An AP-GfK Poll Found That 54 Percent Of Americans Would Characterize The Current State Of The U.S. Economy As "Poor." "The survey showed people were slightly more likely to describe the economy as good and slightly more optimistic about their own financial situations than they were in February. Still, 54 percent characterize the economy as poor." (Kathleen Hennessey and Emily Swanson, "AP-GFK Poll: Obama's Approval Rises With Improving Economy," The Associated Press, 4/11/16)

The Legacy Of Obama's Economic Policies: A Disappearing Middle-Class

A December 2015 Pew Study Found That For The First Time In Four Decades, The Middle Class Is No Longer The Majority. "After more than four decades of serving as the nation's economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it. In early 2015, 120.8 million adults were in middle-income households, compared with 121.3 million in lower- and upper-income households combined, a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data." ("The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground," Pew Research Center, 12/9/15)

  • Middle-Class Jobs, That "Provided A Stable Living For Those With Less Education," Have "Been Replaced With Low-Wage Work." "But middle-skilled jobs, which once provided a stable living for those with less education, have been replaced with low-wage work. Occupations at the growing bottom earn less than $32,000 on average. Only one-third have health insurance and only one-quarter have retirement benefits." (Josh Zumbrun, "Post Recession Job Growth Coming In High-Wage Positions,"The Wall Street Journal, 8/17/15)

A Gallup Survey Found That Only 51 Percent Of U.S. Adults Identify As Middle-Class, Down From 63 Percent Of Those Polled In 2008. "A Gallup survey this spring showed that just 51% of U.S. adults considered themselves middle or upper middle class, with 48% saying they are part of the lower or working class. As recently as 2008, 63% of those polled by Gallup said they were middle class." (Don Lee, "Middle-Class Families, Pillar Of The American Dream, Are No Longer In The Majority, Study Finds," Los Angeles Times, 12/9/15)

The "Slow Recovery" Of The Clinton-Obama Economy Has "Shaken" The Tradition That Americans Have Of Self-Identifying As Middle-Class. "Most Americans have traditionally identified themselves as middle class, even those at the top and bottom, reflecting a kind of cultural heritage tied to the American dream of self-reliance. But the Great Recession and subsequent slow recovery have shaken that image." (Don Lee, "Middle-Class Families, Pillar Of The American Dream, Are No Longer In The Majority, Study Finds," Los Angeles Times, 12/9/15)

American Incomes Have Fallen, Wages Are Stagnant, And Homeownership Is In Decline

During The Obama Administration, Median Household Income Has Fallen $1,656, From $55,313 In 2008 To $53,657 In 2014. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

The Median Individual Income In The U.S. Has Decreased $161 Under Obama, From $36,463 In 2008 To $36,302 In 2014. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

Middle-Income American Families "Make Substantially Less Money" In Inflation Adjusted Terms Than Years Ago And "There Is No Evidence That Is Reversing." "A middle-income American family, in other words, makes substantially less money in inflation-adjusted terms than it did 15 years ago. And there is no evidence that is reversing." (Neil Irwin, "Why Americans Still Think The Economy Is Terrible," The New York Times, 9/16/15)

Last Year, Workers' Salaries And Benefits Rose Just 2 Percent. "The Labor Department says the employment cost index, which tracks wages and benefits, rose 0.6 percent in the October-December quarter. That's the same as the previous three months. In the past year, salaries and benefits have risen just 2 percent, again marking the same annual pace as the previous two quarters. That's below the roughly 3.5 percent rate consistent with a healthy economy." ("Americans'' Wage Gains Remain Muted In 2015," The Associated Press, 1/29/16)

  • In A "Normal Economy" Wage Inflation Would Be Around 3.5 To 4 Percent. "Wage inflation is stuck at the same 2 percent it's been the whole recovery, well below the 3.5 to 4 percent it would be in a normal economy-the implication being that this is not one." (Matt O' Brien, "Excited About An Upcoming Raise? Don't Be."The Washington Post, 8/4/15)

Since Obama Took Office, The U.S. Homeownership Rate Has Dropped By Nearly Four Percent, From 67.3 Percent In The First Quarter Of 2009 To 63.5 Percent In The First Quarter Of 2016. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

  • During The 2nd Quarter Of 2015, The U.S. Homeownership Rate Hit A 48-Year Low, Dropping To 63.4 Percent. "The homeownership rate hit a 48-year low, according to estimates published Tuesday by the Commerce Department, declining to 63.4% in the second quarter from 64.7% in the year-earlier period." (Jeffrey Sparshott, "Rising Rents Outpace Wages In Wide Swaths Of The U.S.," The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/15)

The Number Of Americans Living In Poverty Has Increased By Nearly 7 Million During Obama's Time In Office, And The Number On Food Stamps Has Jumped 40 Percent

Under Obama, The Number Of Americans In Poverty Has Increased By More Than 6.8 Million To 46.7 Million, Up From 39.8 Million In 2008. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

The Poverty Rate Has Increased By 1.6 Percent Under Obama, From 13.2 Percent In 2008 To 14.8 Percent In 2014. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps During Obama's Time In Office Has Increased By More Than 12.4 Million. ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," U.S. Department Of Agriculture Food And Nutrition Service, Accessed 6/1/16)

Obama Is On Track To Be One Of The Worst Presidents Ever For U.S. Economic Growth

Obama Is On Track To "Be The Only U.S. President In History That Did Not Deliver A Single Year Of 3.0% + Economic Growth." "Right now, the nation is probably already in a recession. The BEA's first estimate of 4Q2015 RGDP growth was only 0.69%, and there is mounting evidence that this will later be revised downward. However, making the wildly optimistic assumption that 2016 RGDP growth will come in at the CBO's current forecast (2.67%), Obama will be the only U.S. president in history that did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth." (Louis Woodhill, "Barack Obama's Sad Record On Economic Growth," RealClear Markets, 2/1/16)

Obama Could Leave Office With An Average Economic Growth In The Bottom Four Of All Presidents. "This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)." (Louis Woodhill, "Barack Obama's Sad Record On Economic Growth," RealClear Markets, 2/1/16)

  • Obama May Leave Office Having Only Produced An Average Of 1.55% Economic Growth. "Again, assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)." (Louis Woodhill, "Barack Obama's Sad Record On Economic Growth," RealClear Markets, 2/1/16)

Since The End Of The Recession, The Economy Has Advanced At A 2.2 Percent Annual Rate, Which Is "More Than A Half-Percentage Point Worse Than The Next-Weakest Expansion Of The Past 70 Years." "Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has advanced at a 2.2% annual pace through the end of last year. That's more than a half-percentage point worse than the next-weakest expansion of the past 70 years, the one from 2001 through 2007. While there have been highs and lows in individual quarters, overall the economy has failed to break out of its roughly 2% pattern for six years." (Eric Morath, "The Worst Expansion Since World War II Was Even Weaker," The Wall Street Journal , 7/30/15)

WITH THE LACKLUSTER OBAMA ECONOMY AND CROOKED HILLARY'S TAX AND SPEND POLICIES, IT IS NO WONDER THAT VOTERS TRUST TRUMP ON THE ECONOMY

Recent Polls Have Shown That Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer Trump To Clinton When It Comes To Economic Issues

Gallup Headline: "Trump Leads Clinton On Top-Ranking Economic Issues" ("Trump Leads Clinton On Top-Ranking Economic Issues," Gallup , 6/2/16)

A May Gallup Poll Showed Voters Prefer Trump To Clinton On Virtually Every Economic Issue By Significant Margins, Including The Economy, Jobs, The Budget Deficit, Regulation Of Wall Street, And Taxes. "Beyond his modest leads on the economy (+10) and jobs (+7), and slight edge on terrorism (+4), he leads on several lower-ranked concerns: the federal budget deficit (+18), the size and efficiency of the federal government (+14), regulation of banks and Wall Street (+11), taxes (+8) and gun policy (+5)." ("Trump Leads Clinton On Top-Ranking Economic Issues," Gallup , 6/2/16)

  • Gallup's Poll Shows That Voters Prefer Trump Over Clinton On The Economy 53-43, A Ten Point Margin. ( Gallup , 1530 A, MoE 3.0%, 5/18-22/16)

A May Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Showed That Voters Prefer Trump Over Clinton On "Dealing With Wall Street" By A 21 Point Margin, "Dealing With Economy" By A 11 Point Margin, And "Protecting America On Trade" By A 10 Point Margin. (Wall Street Journal/NBC News, 1000 RV, MoE 3.1, 5/15-19/16)

A May Fox News Poll Showed That 53 Percent Of Voters Trust Trump To Do A Better Job On The Economy And Jobs, A 12 Point Lead Over Clinton . ( Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research , 1021 RV, MoE 3.0%, 5/14-17/16)


Previous post

Fed Chair Highlights How Obama-Clinton Policies Aren't Working

Next post

"Wrong On Nearly Every Major Foreign Policy And National Security Issue Over The Past Four Decades"
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