"Americans see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country," National Journal's Ron Fournier wrote last week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-VA) primary defeat. "They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change."
Fournier then quotes from a 2013 memo written by former Clinton White House political director Doug Sosnik about the rising populist sentiment in America:
Americans' long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point. And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, "Which side of the barricade are you on? Is it the side of the out-of-touch political class that clings to the status quo by protecting those at the top and their own political agendas, or is it the side that is fighting for the kind of change that will make the government work for the people—all the people?"
Unfortunately for Democrats it is becoming increasingly clear which side of the barricade their 2016 nominee will be on. Bloomberg reports today (emphasis added):
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.
To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.
In other words, while mouthing support for taxing the rich through higher estate taxes, the Clinton's are hypocritically doing all they can to avoid the current estate tax rates themselves. No wonder the American people believe their "political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted."
And that is not all the news we learned about the Clintons last week. Politico reported that Chelsea Clinton was paid "an annual salary of $600,000 at NBC News" last year. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple did a little further digging and reported:
If that name hadn’t been connected to American royalty, she could have expected to rake in between $100,000 and $200,000 as a first-year network correspondent, a job that people from less-high-profile families snare only through years and years of tireless work covering the news. That salary range is confirmed by several people familiar with the compensation levels at major network news outlets.
...
NBC News refers to Clinton as a “special correspondent,” a title best interpreted literally. What unspecial correspondent, after all, gets paid more than a half-mil to do puff stories and travel to Nairobi to check in on elephants?
...
Whatever she’s done with her paycheck, this whole Chelsea Clinton-NBC News saga is awful. Awful because it’s an affront to hard-working broadcast journalists. Awful because any NBC News reporter or anchor who hustles for an exclusive with Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton has to live with the suspicion that the network’s familial ties to the Clintons facilitated the “get.” Awful because $600,000. Awful because her chief of staff said that the NBC News job was part of Chelsea Clinton’s plan to “in the public good.” Awful because the conceit for Chelsea Clinton’s interview with fashion designer Stella McCartney — woman with famous father (Bill Clinton) interviews woman with famous father (Paul McCartney) — was awful.
And that is just the news from this month.
There is also Hillary Clinton's sordid relationship with Goldman Sachs, and Boeing, and, in fact, virtually every top 30 company listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
If there is a populist movement rising in America, there is no target more ripe for its judgement than the Clintons.