My friend and former boss Larry Mishel has an early take. Here’s another at TPM. And here’s the awesome Joe Stiglitz phoning in a very not-awesome plug (“Today Hillary Clinton began to offer . . . ” Began? How much more time does she need??)
Her main theme is raising middle class incomes by reversing wage stagnation. This is a good start, though any candidate could claim the same point of departure. Even John Ellis Bush Bush adviser Glenn Hubbard (“Grrr. Give it your best shot.”) acknowledges the need to reverse wage stagnation. It’s where you go with it that matters.
If wage stagnation is the result of “policy choices,” what were those choices, and what policies would reverse them? EPI where I worked for 18 years has been on this forever and arguably has moved the Democratic Party in this dimension, so for that kudos to them.
HRC’s biggest remedy is a $12 minimum wage. I would agree this would be a fine thing. The other measures on wage theft and overtime are welcome but second tier issues to me. More to the point is the discussion of the right to organize, so I ask again what we could rightfully expect in light of past, lackluster pursuit of this goal by Democratic politicians?
The commitment to full employment is another one of those things that everyone is always for. Or nearly everyone. How to do it? I don’t think she has the goods on this one. In her prepared text we can still see some phobic references to the national debt. There are references to the 90s boom, with the implication that it was due to deficit reduction. Wrong wrong wrong. She gets the relevance of tight labor markets, which is crucial, but how to get them?
I have to laugh, or cry, when I think back to the chatter that Bernie doesn’t care about black folks, and HRC does. Her remedy for the ‘hood is “empowerment zones,” which is Ronald Reagan/Jack Kemp bullshit. I could also note with displeasure her 50s nostalgia about how great the middle class had it, since the greatness was limited to white people.
The speech is being played as providing a concession to Bernie Sanders with a commitment to ‘fairness,’ while also nodding to the center with an affirmation of the centrality of growth. The former is said to be dependent on the latter. To the contrary, as a narrowly economic matter, OF COURSE we could have more ‘fairness’ right now at the same level of economic output. This would seem to make fairness contingent on future growth, which is not looking spectacular at the moment.
To be clear, there is some good stuff in the speech. My preference is to illuminate the sucky parts. She’s going to be the nominee, I’m going to vote for her, and she will probably win. In light of all that, I’d prefer people have a better idea of the gaps in her platform.