Hillary Clinton appears to have edged Bernie Sanders by one delegate in yesterday’s three Western primary/caucus votes. By Politico‘s count, Clinton won 59 delegates while Sanders won 58. (State by state, the Clinton–Sanders numbers are Arizona 46–23, Utah 7–18, and Idaho 6–17.) Clinton now has 1,214 pledged delegates over 901 for Sanders (that’s a 57–43 split) and 467 unpledged “super” delegates versus 26 for Sanders.
2,383 delegates make a Democrat the Presidential nominee. Clinton is 71% of the way there. Sanders is 39% of the way there.
Sanders did just get some numbers in his favor from economists at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, who looked at his plan to tax Wall Street investments (the Inclusive Prosperity Act) and found it would raise $300 billion without harming real economic growth:
The tax rates stipulated in this Act include 0.5 percent (50 basis points) for all stock transactions; 0.1 percent (10 basis points) for all bond transactions; and 0.005 percent (0.5 basis points) on the notional value of all derivative trades….[W]e conclude conservatively that the net revenue potential of this U.S. FTT is around $300 billion per year, which equals approximately 1.7 percent of current U.S. GDP. This revenue estimate as a share of GDP is consistent with experiences in other countries which have operated with FTTs with similar tax rates and other design features…. [W]e conclude that a U.S. FTT, which should bring a fall in stock market trading relative to productive investment spending, should not, on balance, produce significant negative effects on productive investments. [abstract, Robert Pollin and James Heintz, “The Revenue Potential of a Financial Transaction Tax for U.S. Financial Markets,” University of Massachusetts–Amherst, Political Economy Research Institute, 2016.03.09].
Essential, Sanders wants to put a sales tax on stock trades. The nurses’ unions backing Sanders put that Wall Street tax in the context of our Main Street tax:
A simple tax of $5 in every $1,000 of stock trades, $1 on the trading of a $1,000 bond, and a mere 5 cents on the trades of derivatives, “such as a stock option, in which the value of the underlying asset, i.e. the stock itself, is worth $1,000.”
Compare that to the average sales tax in the U.S. of 8.4 percent, or $84 on every $1,000 most Americans pay on nearly every consumer item, from shoes to tooth paste [Rose Ann DeMoro, exec, National Nurses United and California Nurses Association, “New Study: Sanders’ Tax Wall Street Plan Would Raise $300 Billion, Create Millions of New Jobs,” Huffington Post, 2016.03.21].
Pollin and James say this stock transaction tax dampens speculation but not productive investment. The job gains come from funding Sanders’s plan to help every willing student go to college:
Taxing Wall Street speculation to finance free public college tuition, as Sanders talks about on the campaign trail, and has introduced in legislation, S 1373, the College for All Act, could create a net expansion of 4.2 million jobs. Not to mention securing equal educational opportunity for everyone, regardless of background or ability to pay.
Investing in education produces more than 8 times the number of jobs created by the same spending in financial services, the authors explain [DeMoro, 2016.03.21].
Clinton has a plan to tax high-frequency trading, but as with much of her pragmatic agenda, she does not go as far as the idealist Sanders. Clinton’s less bold policies are still giving her the edge in the race for the nomination.
Which Democratic candidate can beat Trump?
idealism v. pragmatism.
Hillary is the youngest of the candidates by far, unless cruz gets in but then trump threatens riots will sink the nation.
she is a woman, a perspective the leader of the free world desperately needs to turn this ship. I listened to young dems castigate Hillary last night. they don’t have our perspective.
she has been in liberal politics since taking out trickey dick Nixon, and ending the Vietnam war as a young lawyer. she took on health care reform 1st. one gutzy lady. if she wins the nomination, she will do us right. she is not beholden to wall street. republicans, scalia and citizens united brought in big money that we now HAVE for use to compete. change that later. if Bernie wins the nomination, fine. but if he loses to republicans, the nightmare millenials will have created will be unrecoverable. people like reid, Pelosi, boxer, wasserman-Schultz and emmanual know how dirty the fight is to beat republicans. I hope for all our sakes that Bernie can win, if nominated. I know Hillary can win.
don’t blow this based on vanity or idealism.
MK, I love that question. According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton’s head-to-head polling average over Trump is 9.2 percentage points. Sanders beats Trump by 16.4.
I would contend that any sane Democrat could beat Trump. A solid Dem draws 90% of Democrats (100% of those who know what being a Democrat really means), 67% of Independents, and 30% of Republicans. (The other 70% of Republicans split slightly in favor of a nominated Trump over a fracturing third-party choice like Libertarian Gary Johnson.)
Hillary’s first reaction or position on an issue seems too often to be wrong. Then she catches hell and changes it. Do we want a president who’s first reaction is usually wrong?
Expenditure tax–good plan?
If taxes on the wealthy are further lowered — whether it’s income taxes, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, or anything else — that means that the United States has less income to offset its expenditures.
The major expenditures of the USA are (1) the military-security apparatus and (2) social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Expenditure (2) is mostly self-funded (meaning that there are taxes on wages that are explicitly reserved for social security and Medicare use, but Medicaid does come from the general budget), and thus shouldn’t even be included in a general budget.
“Conservatives” not only want to cut taxes on the wealthy, they also want to dramatically increase military-security spending.
So, the intent is to simultaneously slash Federal revenues and double down on what is already the largest budget item on the planet. From where is the money to do that going to come?
There are literally only three possibilities: (a) Borrow it ( in conflict with “conservative”s’ claimed goal of reducing the deficit and the debt); (b) Raise taxes on everybody else (which will be the effect of Cruz’ and proposal for flat taxes or Bernie’s expenditure taxes); and/or (c) Dramatically grow the economy (which Republican policies have been proven to be unable to do for the last 40 years).
In other words, we’re going to get some combination of (a) and (b) from conservatives.
If the middle and working class residents of this country have to pay more taxes to support the military-security apparatus and whatever tiny fraction of the Federal budget covers everything else that benefits the country (e.g., education, infrastructure, research, health care, etc.), that money is being taken from the middle/working class while less money is taken from the wealthy.
That is, money is being directly extracted from your pockets and mine, and placed into the pockets of the 0.1%.
This IS quite literally income/wealth redistribution … upwards.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, or a libertarian. Your money will be taken by the government and given — no strings attached — to the wealthiest people on the planet.
If taxes on the wealthy are further lowered — whether it’s income taxes, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, or anything else — that means that the United States has less income to offset its expenditures. The major expenditures of the USA are (1) the military-security apparatus and (2) social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Expenditure (2) is mostly self-funded (meaning that there are taxes on wages that are explicitly reserved for social security and Medicare use, but Medicaid does come from the general budget), and thus shouldn’t even be included in a general budget.
But, of course, “conservatives” not only want to cut taxes on the wealthy, they also want to dramatically increase military-security spending. So, the intent is to simultaneously slash Federal revenues and double down on what is already the largest budget item on the planet. From where is the money to do that going to come? There are literally only three possibilities: (a) Borrow it (which is 180° in conflict with “conservative”s’ claimed goal of reducing the deficit and the debt); (b) Raise taxes on everybody else (which will be the effect of Cruz’ and other conservatives’ proposals for flat taxes or expenditure taxes); and/or (c) Dramatically grow the economy (which Republican policies have been proven to be unable to do for the last 40 years). In other words, we’re going to get some combination of (a) and (b).
If the middle and working class residents of this country have to pay more taxes to support the military-security apparatus and whatever tiny fraction of the Federal budget covers everything else that benefits the country (e.g., education, infrastructure, research, health care, etc.), that money is being taken from the middle/working class while less money is taken from the wealthy.
That is, money is being directly extracted from your pockets and mine, and placed into the pockets of the 0.1%. This is quite literally income redistribution *and* wealth redistribution … upwards. And it simply doesn’t matter whether you are a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, or a libertarian. Your money will be taken by the government and given — no strings attached — to the wealthiest people on the planet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/republican-tax-plans_b_9525398.html comment George Eldon
Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy has included pushing the U.S. to support the Honduran Coup which has murdered and tortured their own people, including Berta Careers and another eco-activist in the last three weeks. Her ties to Israel make it impossible for our nation to see any pro-Palestinian agenda and undermine the rights of Palestinians. She is the 1%, Wall Street and connected with corporate-run America, so no chance of ending Citizen’s United, the hold over elections (from which she is now benefitting), ALEC and the Koch Brothers. With the Koch Brothers and Clinton’s support of fracking, the KXL and TPP, South Dakota natural resources, people and wildlife are in jeopardy as well as any opportunities to create new industries in our state that are not destructive to the air, land and water.
Correction to my previous post: the Honduran activist that was assassinated: Her name was Berta Caceres.
Linda, does Sanders need to push that contrast harder? Can he delve into whacking Clinton on such foreign policy issues and demonstrate he favors better policies?