First, Mrs. Clinton should look
at what her husband did in the area of international trade and finance. Like any brilliant politician Bill told his
core voters what they wanted to hear while he was seeking the nomination and
election, then ignored his supporters and did the smart thing. This took two forms. First, his actions on the North American Free
Trade Agreement. While running for
office he said he would only support NAFTA if certain environmental and labor
guidelines were met. This made the
environmentalist and labor union wing of the Democratic Party breathe a sigh of
relief. Then, after he was elected, he
ratified NAFTA as it was negotiated by the previous Bush Administration without
adding the stipulations he said he would.
The result? The American, Mexican
and Canadian economies all grew as trade barriers fell. Sure, there were job losses in areas where
Americans could not compete but the offsetting increases in the demand for our
products created far more jobs and income.
Then, Mr. Clinton took to the
skies, flying to countries all over the globe seeking to open new markets for
America’s biggest resource – cash. In
nation after nation he brilliantly opened up access to foreign capital markets
for American investors looking to earn profits in emerging markets and former
Communist enclaves. This led to
hundreds of billions of dollars in cash flowing through international markets
and a booming American economy.
In the area of taxes and
government spending Mr. Clinton learned from the mistakes of his first two
years by turning into the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan in his last six
years.
Look it up. From the 1994 Congressional midterm elections
when the Democrats were pounded by the “Contract with America” Republicans
until he left office we saw large cuts in capital gains taxes, the effective
elimination of capital gains taxes on the sale of homes, the creation
tax-saving investment accounts like the Roth IRA and of course welfare-reform
legislation in 1996 that helped bring the number of people on welfare from 12.
2 million to 4.5 million. Of course, he
had vetoed two welfare reform bills before finally giving in, and he cannot
take all of the credit for the tax policies he enacted, but the message is
clear.
If Mrs. Clinton wants to end the
economic catastrophe (see the budget, welfare rolls, labor force participation
rates) of the Obama – and even much of the Bush years – she needs to follow her
husband’s blue print.
Clearly, she will have to out
liberal Elizabeth Warren and pretend to really care about income inequality,
the $15 minimum wage, regulations of industry and more. But it is one thing to stir up skeptical
Democrats with visions of eight more years of Obama Socialism. It is another to show genuine economic sense
and leadership. This is what her husband
figured out and it is why many economists – including Ronald Reagan loving
Libertarians like me – would gladly vote for Hillary if she would extend a wink
and a nod in our direction to let us know that her campaign hyperbole will be
replace with economic sanity once she moves back into the White House.
