The Republican National Committee’s war room was probably going crazy after Hillary Clinton bluntly said that her new proposals would cost $1 trillion over the next ten years. In a meeting with New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor, the former first lady and presumptive Democratic nominee was asked by a member of the editorial staff:
"When you look at your spending proposals, all of which seem wonderful, free college and parental leave and things like that but those add up to a trillion dollars so I wonder two things: How high would the tax rate have to be on the people who make more than that, it's 34 percent roughly now and I don't believe you don't support a financial transaction tax but your primary opponents do so I'm trying to make those numbers work."
"Well, what I have proposed would be about a $100 billion a year so it would be a trillion over ten years," she said.
On October 6, Clinton spoke in Davenport, Iowa, where she said that she has ways to pay for her policy initiatives.
“So everything that I am proposing I have a way to pay for it. It's raising taxes on the wealthy, it's closing loopholes, it's doing what I believe we should do so that when I tell you 'here's my plan' I will tell you how I want to pay for it,” she said on the stump. “So I'm going to tell you what I will do and I will tell you how I will pay for it. And you should ask that of everybody,” Clinton added.
Of course, she mentioned taxing the wealthy and closing loopholes; it’s the typical liberal Democratic talking point. But we all know that doesn’t come close to paying for this $1 trillion tab.
Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin said a “day of reckoning is coming” regarding how Clinton will pay for these programs. He noted that she will have to clearly state how much taxes are going to go up, along with how much spending we’re going to cut to meet her goals. After the Thanksgiving holiday, Reuters reported on the $275 billion infrastructure project Clinton has in her agenda should she be elected next year, which an aide said would be paid for “by changing how businesses are taxed.” Yeah, you guessed it; no other details were offered.
While the Democrats love to tout their middle class warrior roots, it’s uncertain that a future Clinton administration would not raise taxes for Americans in this income bracket.
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton operative, asked the former Secretary of State last Sunday if not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 was a “rock solid, read my lips promise.”
Clinton responded by saying, “Well, it certainly is my goal and I’ve laid it out in this campaign and it’s something President Obama promised, it’s something my husband certainly tried to achieve, because I want Americans to know that I get it.”
So says the limousine liberal who hasn’t driven a car since 1996, and infamously declared her family was dead broke upon leaving the White House, despite her husband earning $24,000 a day in the first few months of vacating the residence.
Additionally, Obama has already broken his promise of not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year when he added a cigarette tax to help pay for SCHIP, and the tax (though it’s called a fine) on those who don’t have health insurance. In 2014, the government raised $1.5 billion from 7.5 million households thanks to the president’s new health care law.
So, when it comes to keeping promises, both parties have had their fair share of shortfalls. But if Democrats promise anything relating to taxes or fiscal matters, better save a little more for tax season because they’ll find someway to squeeze the money out of you, regardless of your supposed protected status in the income bracket.
Clinton says it’s a goal not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k/year to pay for a massive increase in government spending over the next ten years. Does that sound rational to anyone?
Brace yourselves; everyone’s taxes have to go up to pay for Obama’s third term in office.