Contribute
CONNECT:

research

Enough Of Clinton Economics

- July 24, 2016

American Families Can't Afford Four More Years Like The Last Eight Years

TOP TAKEAWAYS

  • On the campaign trail, Clinton has embraced Obama's economy legacy, saying he deserves an "A" for his handling of the economy and doesn't "get the credit he deserves" for his economic policies.
  • But the reality is that over the last eight years, workers have seen their incomes fall and their wages stagnate under anemic economic growth, leaving Americans struggling to stay in the middle class and millions falling into poverty.
  • Clinton's plan to fix the Obama economy: nearly $2 trillion in new spending, which Clinton promises she will fully pay for with massive job-killing tax increases.
  • But the reality is that Clinton's tax hikes fall far short of paying for her trillions in spending increases, and would result in more than $1 trillion being added to the deficit.
  • The end effect of Clinton's tax and spend policies: economic contraction, job losses, and lower wages for American workers. 
  • Americans shouldn't be surprised that Clinton wants to raise taxes, since she spent eight years in the Senate repeatedly voting for higher taxes on the middle class and U.S. businesses.

Clinton Is Embracing Four More Years Of Obama's Economic Policies, Saying He Deserves An "A" For His Handling Of The Economy And Doesn't "Get The Credit He Deserves"

On The Campaign Trail, Clinton Is "Embracing [Obama] And His Legacy With Fervor," Moving "To Portray Herself As An Heir To Obama's Policies." "Hillary Clinton has distanced herself from President Barack Obama on a number of high-profile issues since starting her bid for the White House. Now, under pressure from left-leaning challenger Bernie Sanders, she is embracing him and his legacy with fervor. That strategy could pose problems for Clinton in the long run as Republicans look for fodder to portray her as representing Obama's third term should she win the Democratic nomination. As she faces an unexpected challenge from Sanders in the early voting states, Clinton's move to portray herself as an heir to Obama's policies is aimed at courting young voters and progressives who are part of the president's political base." (Jeff Mason and Steve Holland, "Clinton's Embrace Of Obama Holds Risks For General Election Matchup," Reuters, 1/18/16)

In October 2015, Clinton Gave The Obama Administration An "A" For Its Overall Performance, Specifically Citing Obama's Economic Policies.  QUESTIONER: "As for President Obama himself, what letter grade would you give his administration?" 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 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 REALITY: OBAMA FAILED TO GROW THE ECONOMY AND HIS POLICIES HAVE LEFT THE MIDDLE CLASS BEHIND

Obama Has One Of The Worst Records Of Economic Growth For Any U.S. President In History

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)

The National Association Of Counties Found That Under The Clinton-Obama Economy, 93 Percent Of Counties In The United States "Have Failed To Fully Recover" From The Recession. "More than six years after the economic expansion began, 93% of counties in the U.S. have failed to fully recover from the blow they suffered during the recession. Nationwide, 214 counties, or 7% of 3,069, had recovered last year to prerecession levels on four indicators: total employment, the unemployment rate, size of the economy and home values, a study from the National Association of Counties released Tuesday found." (Eric Morath, "Six Years Later, 93% Of U.S. Counties Haven't Recovered From Recession, Study Finds," The Wall Street Journal , 1/12/16)

Obama's Economy Is Marked By Falling Incomes, Stagnant Wages, And Declining Homeownership

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 According To The Bureau Of Labor Statistics. "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)

Since Obama Took Office, 7 Million More Americans Are In Poverty And The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Has Increased By Over 35 Percent

Under Obama, The Number Of Americans In Poverty Has Increased By More Than 6.8 Million, From 39.8 Million In 2008 To 46.7 Million In 2014. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 6/1/16)

The Poverty Rate Has Increased By 1.6 Percentage Points 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 11.5 Million, From 31.98 Million In January 2009 To 43.57 Million Americans In April 2016. ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," U.S. Department Of Agriculture Food And Nutrition Service, Accessed 7/23/16)

The Labor Force Participation Rate Is At Its Lowest Level Since The Carter Administration

June's Labor Force Participation Rate Of 62.7 Percent Is At A Level Last Seen In February 1978. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/8/16)

The U.S. Has Hemorrhaged Hundreds Of Thousands Of Manufacturing Jobs

Since Obama Took Office, The Nation Has Lost 265,000 Manufacturing Jobs.  (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 7/8/16)

Obama Will Be The "$20 Trillion Man," Increasing The National Debt By 80 Percent

Under The Obama Administration, The Debt Has Increased By 80 Percent, A Total Of Over $8.7 Trillion, From $10.627 Trillion In 2009 To $ 19.400 Trillion As Of July 21, 2016. ("Daily History Of The Debt," U.S. Department Of Treasury, Accessed 7/23/16)

  • 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)

Obama's Economic Legacy Is 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)

CLINTON'S PLAN TO FIX OBAMA'S ECONOMY: HARMING AMERICAN WORKERS AND ADDING OVER A TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT

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 Actually 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)

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

Despite Clinton's Claim, "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)

When Accounting For The Impact Clinton's Policies Will Have Toward Harming The Economy, Clinton's Tax Hikes Would Only Raise $191 Billion, Adding More Than A Trillion To The Deficit In 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)

  • 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)

Even When Clinton's Tax Increases Were Estimated Using A Static Analysis, The Tax Foundation Found They Would Raise $498 Billion Over Ten Years, Still Falling Far Short Of Her Nearly $2 Trillion In New Spending. "Overall, the plan would increase federal revenue on a static basis by $498 billion over the next 10 years. Most of the revenue gain is due to increased individual income tax revenue, which we project to raise approximately $381 billion over the next decade. The changes to the estate tax will raise an additional $106 billion over the next decade. The remaining $11 billion would be raised through increased taxes on corporations." (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)

CLINTON'S PLAN TO RAISE TAXES SHOULD SURPRISE NO ONE AFTER SHE SPENT EIGHT YEARS IN THE SENATE VOTING FOR TAX INCREASE AFTER TAX INCREASE

In The Midst Of The Great Recession, Then-Senator Clinton Voted To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class In 2008

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 51-45: 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)

In 2008, Clinton Voted Twice In Favor Of Raising Taxes On Americans Earning Below $250,000

Clinton Twice Voted In Favor Of The FY 2008 Democrat Budget Which Raised Taxes For Americans In The Two Highest Income Brackets. (S. Con. Res. 21, CQ Vote #172: Adopted 52-40: R 2- 40; D 48-0; I 2-0, 5/17/07, Clinton Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 21, CQ Vote #114: Adopted: 52-47: R 2-47; D 48-0; I 2-0, 3/23/07, Clinton Voted Yea)

  • In 2008, Earners In The Second Highest Tax Bracket, With A Marginal Rate Of 33 Percent, Earned Between $164,550 And $357,700. (Individual Income Tax Parameters, Tax Policy Center, Accessed 11/25/15)

Clinton Voted Three Times To Raise The Capital Gains Tax On Middle-Class Americans

Clinton Voted In Favor Of Raising Capital Gains Tax Rates On The Middle-Class At Least 3 Times. (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #8: Motion Rejected 44-53: R 1-52; D 42-1; I 1-0, 2/2/06, Clinton Voted Yea; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #17: Motion Rejected 47-53: R 3-52; D 43-1; I 1-0, 2/14/06, Clinton Voted Yea; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #18: Motion Rejected 45-55: R 1-54; D 43-1; I 1-0, 2/14/06, Clinton Voted Yea)

  • Clinton's Vote Would Have Taxed Middle-Class Capital Gains By About An Additional 5 Percent Of Income, Moving The Rate From 15 Percent To 20 Percent. (Individual Income Tax Parameters, Tax Policy Center, Accessed 11/25/15)

Clinton Repeatedly Voted To Maintain Higher Taxes On Small Businesses

Clinton Voted Against The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts, Which Cut All Income Tax Rates, Including Those Encompassing Small Businesses. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, 5/26/01, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, Clinton Voted Nay)

Clinton Voted Against The 2003 Tax Cut That Increased Small Business Deductions On Investments To $100,000. "Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' discretion. The agreement includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would increase to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include increasing the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005." (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, Clinton Voted Nay)

  • The 2003 Tax Cuts Increased The Small Business Investment Deduction From $25,000 To $100,000. "Under current law, as signed by the president in 2003, there is an annual maximum dollar limit. The total cost of Section 179 property has been increased from $25,000 to $100,000. This maximum dollar limit is reduced if you go over the investment limit in any year." ("Small Business/Section 179 Expensing,," National Federation Of Independent Business Website, Accessed 9/28/14)

The Joint Economic Committee Found That Over 20 Million Small Businesses Would Benefit From An Income Tax Reduction. "Over 20 million small businesses that pay tax under the personal income tax system would also benefit from rate reductions. Recent research finds a strong link between marginal tax rates and small business hiring and investment behavior." ("Economic Benefits Of Personal Income Tax Rate Reductions," Joint Economic Committee Website, 4/01) 


Previous post

WTAS: Dems In Disarray Round Two: Philadelphia Boogaloo

Next post

Sanders Delegates Protest The Rigged System That Anointed Crooked Hillary
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