Why a Vote for Hillary Clinton Is Like a Vote for Elizabeth Warren
Opinion

Why a Vote for Hillary Clinton Is Like a Vote for Elizabeth Warren

Reuters/Yuri Gripas

Consider: Hillary Clinton is hailed as having had a “very good week.” Why? Because in Congressional testimony she ducked responsibility for the deaths of four Americans who did not receive requested security back-up by her agency. (She never saw the memo.) Also, because President Obama hinted that maybe she would not be indicted for mishandling Top Secret documents. What a coup!

This is who the Democrats will likely nominate to be their standard bearer in 2016. Mainly because there is no one else. Some are crushed that Elizabeth Warren has not entered the race, but the majority of Democrats consider the left-wing senator from Massachusetts too extreme. They worry her progressive agenda would likely throw the country deeper into debt and further slow our growth. In a recent mock-up contest between Hillary Clinton and the ultra-liberal Massachusetts senator, Warren gets only 28 percent of the vote (compared to 38 percent for Joe Biden, for instance.)

Related: Why Elizabeth Warren Is a Threat to America’s Growth

The only time Warren bested Mrs. Clinton in a faux match-up was when MoveOn.Org manipulated the outcome by telling would-be voters favorable things about Warren, such as: "Elizabeth Warren wants to extend the same low interest rates that the federal government gives big Wall Street banks to college students who receive government loans for their education." And, "The absolute last thing we should do (to Social Security) is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch. We should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits -- not cutting them."

Hillary Clinton has stolen the playbook of the person The Economist calls the “powerful and influential leader of the Democratic Party's progressive wing.”

After this indoctrination, Iowa voters understandably picked Warren over Clinton by a margin of 31-24. That was in February, when her fans still hoped she might run.

Newsflash: she didn’t need to. Hillary Clinton has stolen the playbook of the person The Economist calls the “powerful and influential leader of the Democratic Party's progressive wing.” Mrs. Clinton started drifting left well before Bernie Sanders challenged her. She boxed Warren out by assuming her mantle. Some of this policy shift was political, some by inclination. Though very little about Hillary Clinton is authentic and not engineered by focus groups and pollsters, she is genuinely more progressive than her husband, despite her copious ties to Wall Street and wealthy donors. And, she was, earlier in this cycle, genuinely worried about Elizabeth Warren.

Related: What Elizabeth Warren Has That Hillary Clinton Needs

Voters need to understand that a vote for Hillary Clinton is not a vote to repeat the golden days of her husband’s presidency. Instead, it is a vote for a far-left agenda that will lead to even higher taxes, more regulation and increasing frustration among those trying to hire people and grow a business. This is, most definitely, not what the country needs.

Her economic pronouncements have made this clear. Her opposition to the so-called “gig” economy – the upstart enterprises like Uber and Taskrabbit that are the darlings of millennials and unquestionably the wave of the future – reflects her affection for rigid government oversight. Heaven forbid that people are left free to engage with others in spontaneous transactions.

Hillary lines up with Warren in wanting taxpayers to help bail out students who carry burdensome student loans, and both talk about the “game being rigged.” They target income inequality, and push raising the minimum wage as the antidote. They both want to tax the rich, in order to “level the playing field.”

Both Clinton and Warren oppose President Obama’s cherished Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, having identified the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision as likely to undermine U.S. regulations and, in particular, Dodd-Frank.

Related: Elizabeth Warren: We Helped the Big Banks. Why Not Puerto Rico?

Unsurprisingly, Hillary has been echoing Warren’s anger over banker misdeeds, decrying the reluctance of prosecutors to send miscreants to jail. Warren rails about a “lack of accountability” on Wall Street and Hillary chimes in.  

UBS began to donate generously to the Clinton Foundation, with total gifts climbing from under $60,000 through 2008 to a grand total of roughly $600,000 by the end of 2014.

But it is here where things get a little tricky for Clinton. One of the more curious incidents early in her tenure as Secretary of State was her intervention in a dispute between Swiss banking giant UBS and the IRS. UBS asked Clinton’s help in navigating a complex demand from US regulators that they provide information that would contravene Swiss banking laws – an usual request for our top diplomat. Clinton helped negotiate just the sort of deal Warren would hate – wherein only some of the requested information was handed over to the IRS and the bank escaped facing charges in U.S. criminal court.

Shortly thereafter, UBS began to donate generously to the Clinton Foundation, with total gifts climbing from under $60,000 through 2008 to a grand total of roughly $600,000 by the end of 2014. Further, UBS bankrolled programs launched by the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $32 million, and doled out $1.5 million to compensate Bill Clinton for appearing at several talk-a-thons with UBS top brass. UBS actually ranks as the former president’s biggest payday since he was in office.

Related: Why Elizabeth Warren Trumps Obama’s Economic Message

Hillary also (finally) fell in line with Warren’s opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, after years of dithering. This is another complicated issue for Clinton. Lobbyists for TransCanada, the company intent on building the line, include Paul Elliot, a former Clinton staffer and David Goldwyn, former Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs in her State Department. (Hillary Clinton rails about the “revolving door” between government and industry – she may have a point.)

As in the UBS situation, the Clinton Foundation took money from backers of the pipeline, including Canada's Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development department, which donated between $250,000 and $500,000 and Anadarko Petroleum and ExxonMobil, both of which have advocated for construction of the facility.  

Hillary has her hands full matching Bernie Sanders’ righteous anger about the injustices of our capitalist system. She is not only extremely wealthy, but she has benefited hugely from the generosity of America’s top 1 percent. That makes her allegiance to Elizabeth Warren’s progressive agenda challenging enough. Conflicts of interest involving the family foundation and husband Bill’s speaking career are problematic too. But, she has overcome these obstacles, and -- voters should not be confused – she is running for president on Liz Warren’s agenda with a smidge of corruption thrown in the mix.  

TOP READS FROM THE FISCAL TIMES