Centillionaire Hillary is bad for business. . . .
Hillary now expresses surprise (0:45) that domestic small business formation has declined.
In 2014 she gave a neat summary of her lack of economic understanding, when she publicly proclaimed (0:36) last October 24:
Don’t let anyone tell that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory — trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.
Those linked 81 seconds above are reinforced by her curt 1993 dismissal of small business concerns about the regulatory costs that HillaryCare would impose: “I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.”
It is of course the crippling regulatory costs imposed under ObamaCare that are a major reason small business formation is down.
In 2014 Ralph Reiland summarized Hillary's confusion as to the above matters perfectly:
First, During President Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics the nation’s unemployment rate dropped from 7.1 percent in 1980 to 5.5 percent in 1988. Similarly, the inflation rate dropped from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. Overall, double digit misery turned into job growth and across-the-board gains in inflation-adjusted income.
Second, the vast majority of U.S. workers are employed in jobs that were created in the private sector, as reported in a March 2014 Congressional Research Service publication, Selected Characteristics of the Private and Public Sector Workers: “In 2013, public sector jobs accounted for 16.0 percent of total employment.”
That means that 84 percent of total jobs in the U.S. economy are created in the private sector. In fact, the 84 percent actually understates the role of the private sector in the overall economy’s job creation since the taxes paid by private sector companies and their employees supply the bulk of the funds that pay the salaries and benefits of those employed in the public sector.
So the near-certain standard bearer for America's oldest extant political party shows the economic illiteracy one would expect from a teenager.
Now on to Hillary's "one percent" income inequality mantra. NRO's Kevin Williamson offers metrics for who is in America's top one percent: a $400,000 individual or household income; the typical CEO makes $200,000, far less than those in the Fortune 500 whose income hauls & golden (some, platinum) parachutes make the news. Top level government bureaucrats have made the one percent tier; and unlike CEOs & private sector employees they are almost impossible to fire, so the taxpayers must pony up.
BTW, Hillary's "familynomics" are a special form of Hillarynomics. Victor Davis Hanson details the sleazy familial enrichment she practices. Not only her notorious speaking fees--$300,000 for a 30-minute speech amounts to $165/second to hear Hillary dispense myriad banalities. Consider "princessling" (feminine for princeling) Chelsea, whose net worth, VDH reports, is estimated at $15 million. Chelsea was paid $600,000 annually during her stint at MSNBC; weighted by her airtime Chelsea reaped $26,000 per minute, which equates to $433 per second, nearly thrice Hillary's speech wages.
What VDH misses is that by arranging for Chelsea to get cushy jobs at astronomical compensation & plutocrat board placings to enrich her daughter, Hillary (legally) avoided federal gift taxes. Currently there is a $14,000 annual exemption from gift taxation, up from $12,000 annually when Obama took office. Chelsea instead pays income tax. At 40 percent of the amount above the minuscule annual exemption, the gift tax is higher than the federal income tax rates.
Bottom Line. Hillary's ignorance and partisan inclinations augur ill for her ability as president to take steps that would facilitate domestic economic growth.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Economy, Conservative Politics