It would be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I’ve never been a fan of Hillary Clinton’s. In fact, I wrote a piece elsewhere about twenty years ago in which I spoke of her as “The most dangerous woman in America.” If my feelings on that have softened over the years it is for several reasons. The first is that Mrs. Clinton seems to be embarked on a course of self-destruction which may well minimize her ability to attain a position of serious power. The second is that a substantial number of challengers to that title have emerged, Sen. Elizabeth Warren being in the vanguard of those.
Despite the fact that I’ve never signed on to the Hillary Fan Club, I wish her nor anyone else any harm. And I fear for her safety because of some statements that she recently made, specifically her remarks this week that, “Trickle down economics doesn’t work – we’ve seen that fail rather spectacularly.”
The economic theory to which Mrs. Clinton referred in that speech suggests that by lowering tax rates on those who are the wealthiest, that saves them money which they will in turn invest in creating jobs and that those jobs will create more jobs and that everyone in the economy will benefit because there will be more people employed and the taxes that they pay on their earnings will more than overcome the amount of the tax reduction which was originally given.
Of course, those like Mrs. Clinton on the left will naturally acknowledge a corollary that is the reverse of the trickle down theory. If you believe that cutting tax rates on the wealthiest does nothing to stimulate job creation, then you naturally must believe that increasing them will have no negative impact on job creation, the consumer or the economy overall – other than to raise additional tax revenues which can then funnel into the national Treasury to be misspent by those in positions of power in Washington.
That is a statement that might involve some personal peril for the former First Lady.
In Nevada we have three propositions on the ballot. The third of these, (cleverly named Proposition 3), wants the voters to decide whether to allow Nevada to collect a 2% tax on the revenues of companies if those companies’ revenues exceed $1 million per year. Incidentally, it doesn’t matter whether the company is profitable or if it loses money. That’s Govthink at it’s finest. The purported beneficiary of these funds to be collected will be our schools. As one might expect, the NEA has endorsed this proposal. And the AFL-CIO which initially supported the idea has, perhaps because of their experience in sponsoring Obamacare, have now changed their view and opposes its passage.
Without discussing the arguments pro and con, (I voted “NO”), this is yet another tax which purportedly will benefit a specific cause – and which will, almost as soon as it is passed, wind up being something that goes into the General Fund and will be used for whatever purposes those in Carson City choose. I saw this same scenario when Illinois authorized the creation of the state lottery – which was to benefit education. I gave it three years before those proceeds were swept into the General Fund – and, as I recall, it only took two.
Among the plethora of political ads that one would expect the week before an election, there have been a substantial number which have urged Nevadans to vote “NO” on Prop 3. I have yet to see one that advocates its passage – which suggests to me that the “NO” side has a lot of money backing it. Considering the fact that casinos are the principal source of revenue to the state and that they clearly would be subject to this proposed tax, it doesn’t require an Einstein to guess that they are among the funders for these ads. And if you questioned that, one of the spokespeople advocating the defeat of the measure is none other than His Honor, the much beloved former Mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman.
Before becoming Las Vegas’ mayor, Goodman spent most of his career as an attorney – more specifically as a defense attorney. He handled many high profile clients and represented them with vigor and very positive results. Among those he defended were people associated with “the Mob” including Meyer Lansky, Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal, “Fat Herbie” Blitzstein (whose grandson owns a maintenance company that services my pool), Nicky Scarfo and Anthony “Tony the Ant” Spilotro. It would be fair that many in the underworld viewed Mayor Goodman as their “go to” guy when it came to defending them from prosecution. And it’s hardly a secret that before Nevada’s casinos became corporate entities, they were controlled and run by “The Mob.”
As I write this, one of Mayor Goodman’s ads appeared on FOX News. The text of the ad (slightly paraphrased because I don’t type as fast as he can speak) is:
“If Prop 3 passes it will have an impact on everyone in Nevada. Do you know what happens when a corporation gets a tax increase? They pass it on to all of us. They fire their own employees. This will cost us more in what we pay at the grocery store, what we pay for health care, it’s going to smack all of us right in the jaw.”
Wait a minute. That’s trickle down economics. The only difference is that in this case the former mayor discusses the impact of an increase in tax rates rather than a decrease.
While I don’t recall reading any stories that Hillary Clinton plays polo or enjoys horseback riding, I would suggest that before she snuggles up for a good night’s rest, it might behoove her to check for any equine body parts that might have unexpectedly been placed under the covers.