I thank David Brooks for outlining this predicament and highlighting for myself why I am a Human Capital Progressive and not a Redistributionist Progressive.
Link to David Brook's column
I have been rather silent on the Democratic side of the 2016 Presidential campaign because there hasn't been much to talk about. On the GOP side, I am just thankful that Jeb Bush, who is not a wild eyed crazy, is getting some early traction, although it is far to early to say whether he will be successful navigating the Primaries.
On the other hand, I don't relish the thought of another Bush Presidency because, frankly, I don't think he or George II are of the caliber of the George I for clear thinking and belief that balance in needed in government.
But this is about the Democrats. I hope someone runs against Hillary or even that "E-mail gate" convinces her that she should just enjoy being Grandma. Because, I think the GOP can beat Hillary. She will have been part of the NY/D.C. scene for 24 years in 2016. If that doesn't make you establishment, I don't know what does. And I don't think someone who is part and parcel of the mess we have in D.C. can be a solution (that goes for both parties). "E-mail Gate" illustrates how out of touch with reality Hillary is. Yes, she will promote policies that I believe in, but she is also too desperate to be President. Why else would a 67 year old even contemplate running for President?
As for the Progressive change in focus from Human Capital to Redistribution, while it is fine to focus on income inequality as an issue, it remains true that you can only find so much money in redistribution and that is primarily by closing loopholes of which there are only a couple of significant ones left. You cannot raise marginal rates any higher: the GOP won't allow it and it is bad economic policy to have a dollar of income taxed at greater than 50% on the margin and we are not far below it now (39.1% Fed + 2.3% Medicare (I think I have that right) + whatever State rate someone has, 7.9% in NY).
Redistribution, other than closing the Carried Interest loop hole, is a losing proposition in this country. The fact that we have a Supreme Court dominated by Conservatives who see no evil in Citizens United is thanks to Bill Clinton whose Monica Lewinsky scandal cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Now Hillary will probably run, may well lose because of her desperation, and the liberal justices who retire between 2017 and 2021 will be replaced by conservative justices. Money will be dominating U.S. politics for decades to come.
I don't know who is a great Democratic candidate for 2016. I just know Elizabeth Warren progressivism is a losing proposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment