In a interview last week Hillary Clinton said she would give President Obama’s economic record an A. Three days later the Commerce Department issued an economic report deserving of a D at best.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew a feeble 1.5% in the third quarter, ending September 30th. This is below average, even for the anemic Obama era and not nearly strong enough to restore the job market and normal American prosperity.
The Obama Administration insists that his economic record be measured not from the beginning of his first term but six months later when the recession ended and economic recovery began. So, the first chart below compares the twenty five quarters of the Obama era post-recession recovery with the first twenty five quarters of every previous recovery since the government began issuing quarterly GDP reports. In each case measurement begins with the first quarter of positive GDP growth after a recession.Obviously, our current “recovery” ranks tenth out of ten.
The next chart shows the same post-recession economic growth data (green bars) plus the increase or decrease in government spending during the first two years of the preceding recession (blue bars.)
We included the second chart because the President and the Democrats promised us back in 2009 that their massive spike in government spending would buy a “robust recovery” and put America back to work. The President promised that just one element of his borrowing and spending binge, the so-called stimulus, would, in his words, “immediately jumpstart job creation and long term growth.” To cheers of approval from the political-media establishment the stimulus package was enacted on the 23d day of his Presidency. We’re still waiting for that jumpstart.
The President, the media, and progressive economists were unanimous: A monster program of government borrowing and spending would bring about prosperity. But, as the second chart shows, the historical data does not support this progressive article of faith. There is no historical example of the government borrowing and spending the nation into prosperity.
Obama’s reckless, seven year experiment has generated an alarming $6.2 trillion in deficits and increased government debt held by the public by 112%.
And, as the charts show we’re still suffering through the weakest post-recession recovery since the government began issuing quarterly GDP reports 66 years ago. Yet Hillary Clinton and the Democrats insist the problem is government still hasn’t spent nearly enough! They call for huge new spending programs, so many we can’t keep up.
A year ago the Administration spiked the football on news of two quarters in a row exceeding 4% growth. We were told the President’s policies were working and prosperity was growing. But the four quarterly reports since then average an unacceptable 2%. So there was no celebratory boasting from the White House this week.
The American economy, while the most resilient in human history, struggles under the weight of decades of accumulated government intervention in the form of excessive regulation, taxation, and bureaucratic mandates, the most recent being Obamacare and the massive, Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. These government intrusions into the private sector, and the generally anti-business, anti-investment attitude of the Obama Administration discourages and deters entrepreneurs and investors, resulting in dramatically fewer of the business start-ups and expansions that create jobs and grow the economy.
Polls show that because Candidate Obama promised so much more than President Obama has delivered voters are restive and dissatisfied. Yet Hillary Clinton, gives him an A and promises more of the same!
The clear, easily understood failure of Obama’s textbook, big government ideas presents an historic opportunity for a Republican Presidential candidate, not only to win the election but to do so with a genuine mandate for reduction of federal taxes, regulation and intervention in the economy.
The political-media establishment was enraged by Dr. Ben Carson’s answer to a question on Meet The Press regarding a hypothetical Muslim Presidential Candidate.
The context of the question was a chorus of media and political indignation against Donald Trump for his failure to reprimand or correct a man who, at Trump’s town-hall style event had stepped to the microphone and claimed that President Obama was a Muslim and “not even an American.”
To conform with media priorities, Meet The Press host Chuck Todd needed Dr. Carson react to Trump’s conduct, as if that were more important to voters than Carson’s policy ideas. Todd’s preamble included the phrase “finally dealing with” as if Carson had somehow dodged an obligation to address Trump’s behavior. Both the questions and Carson’s answers have been widely misquoted and misrepresented. So here’s a word for word transcript:
Chuck Todd: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what’s been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the President was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?
Dr. Ben Carson: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.
Chuck Todd: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?
Dr. Ben Carson: No, I don’t, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
The sanctimonious fury from liberals was immediate and intense. Typical was a seething column titled “Unfit for the Oval Office” by Washington post’s Jonathan Capehart, who opened by daring to go where pundits of the left almost never tread, the US Constitution. Said Capehart:
The last phrase of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution could not be clearer: “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The Constitution certainly does forbid a religious test, meaning that Congress may not enact a law making adherence to certain religion(s) a requirement for holding office.
But,the portion Capehart omitted requires every elected official, especially the President, to be bound by oath to uphold The Constitution. This, as Dr. Carson understands, is the problem. Islam, unlike other faiths, is both a religion and a political system. Under Islam, government and religion are one. Islamic law, or Sharia, is a complete system, not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to another authority, such as our Constitution.
Islamic law includes several provisions that directly contradict the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Women are subordinated to less than equal status with men in almost every aspect of life. In some matters, such as divorce women are treated as property. Sharia forbids Muslims from choosing a different faith, with death being the penalty for violation. Homosexuality is illegal and the penalty is death. These are just a few examples of Islam’s draconian governance that Americans would find intolerable.
Dr. Carson was absolutely justified to answer the question as he did. He could not advocate a Muslim President because the act of taking the Presidential oath of office, would constitute a repudiation of a Muslim’s faith. Upholding the Constitution, to the exclusion of Sharia, would put this hypothetical President in direct conflict with his beliefs. How could Carson, or anyone else, possibly advocate electing such a person to the Presidency?
Carson’s position is perfectly reasonable and makes perfect sense. His detractors have lost their minds in a swamp of irrational, political correctness.
Predictably, Mr. Trump’s first written policy document was a package of immigration reform proposals including an end to birthright citizenship.
Trump’s roaring pronouncements regarding this idea kicked off heated debate over so-called “anchor babies” who, because they were born in the US are American citizens even though their parents are citizens of other countries who entered the US illegally. Unfortunately, the debate has been heavy on emotion and fury but light on reason.
More on why they’re called anchor babies and why the nickname is misleading in a bit. First, the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The first sentence is:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This language was enacted in 1868, three years after the Civil War, primarily to protect black people, many of whom were recently freed slaves, from malicious schemes to deny their basic rights based on assertions they were not genuine citizens. This first sentence of the 14th Amendment was intended to make clear that they were citizens and thus entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. In 1868 there were no “illegal immigrants” as we understand this term today, so the 14th Amendment’s authors may not have anticipated the concept of “anchor babies.”
We’ll discuss the qualifying clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” below.
Why are they called “anchor babies”? A lot of people, perhaps including Mr. Trump, believe that the birth of a baby in the US is an immediate grant of immunity from deportation for the illegal immigrant parents and other family members. But this isn’t true. Under laws enacted decades ago a citizen must be at least 21 years old before he or she can apply for permission for parents or other family members to reside in the US legally. The process takes several years, the outcome isn’t guaranteed, and there’s an additional three year waiting penalty for family members who have previously lived here illegally.
Thus, reality completely debunks Trump’s assertion that the opportunity to give birth to an American citizen baby is “the biggest magnet for illegal immigration” drawing millions of people who otherwise would not have come across the border illegally. Most illegal immigrants are desperately poor, under-educated people, looking for immediate job opportunities and/or immediate government funded benefits. They do not see themselves as taking step one in an elaborate, high-risk, anchor baby scheme that won’t pay off for 25-35 years, if ever.
Now let’s look at the Supreme Court’s thin record of precedents regarding the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. On his Fox News program Bill O’Reilly thundered triumphantly at various guests that in a 1985 case, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) vs Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court had decreed that a child of an illegal immigrant born in the United States was a citizen.
However, Mr. O’Reilly vastly overstated his point. INS Vs Rios-Pineda was about an entirely different matter. Mr. Rios-Pineda and his wife were illegal immigrants who had applied for permission to remain in the US. Their application was denied and they had gone through several appeals over a period of six years, during which time they had had two children in the US.
But the Supreme Court case was not about the children. The question resolved by the Courts’ ruling was whether or not the US Attorney General had the authority to deny them yet another appeal. The Court’s opinion mentions the children in language called “dicta” because it’s incidental to the ruling and doesn’t become a precedent binding on lower courts in the future.
In fact, the court’s “holding” or it’s actual ruling, was that the Attorney General did have the authority to deny another appeal, resulting in immediate deportation of the family including the two citizen children. So the fact noted by the court that the children were citizens was irrelevant to the family’s fate. It didn’t help them at all.
Citizen children are routinely deported with their parents. They can stay here, separated from their parents, only if family members who live here legally are willing and financially able to take responsibility for them as guardians.
Another Supreme Court case fueling the TV shouting matches is United States Vs Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. But Wong, who contested actions taken against him by immigration authorities and won his case, was the son of LEGAL Chinese immigrants. Thus this case is not relevant to the anchor baby question.
Finally, more furious arguments in favor of Mr. Trump’s position come from commentators citing the qualifying clause mentioned above, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This language was intended to exclude a very small number of babies born to visiting foreign diplomats and a much larger number born to Indians who were considered citizens of their tribal nations, not the United States. But, since Indians were made full, unqualified, United States citizens by an act of Congress in 1924 this clause would seem to be moot today.
However, Mr. Trump’s supporters while admitting that illegal immigrants are “subject to” or must obey the laws of the United states, still claim they are still not “subject to the jurisdiction” because they don’t “owe allegiance” to the United States. This “owe allegiance” concept comes from Common Law, rooted in a past eras. Do American citizens “owe allegiance” in the same way as citizens of Kingdoms? Since we’re free to leave, free to renounce citizenship, free to become citizens of another nation it would seem that we don’t “owe allegiance.” Very few Americans abandon their citizenship, not because we “owe” something, but because we want to stay here.
In fact, the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling to directly answer the question, does the 14th Amendment make the children of illegal immigrants citizens? Certainly the four liberal Justices now on the court who nearly always vote as a partisan block for whatever Democrats want would not vote for anything that might curtail immigration. Conservative Justices are different from liberals in their aversion to rulings contrived to secure desired results rather than honest enforcement of Constitutional language. So, they too would likely hold that “anchor babies” are citizens, based on the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
A Constitutional Amendment is theoretically possible. But that would require two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress followed by three-quarters of state legislatures. Also, attempting to deny citizenship to certain babies would be a much more complex administrative challenge than the bombastic Mr. Trump has bothered to discuss. Birth records are generated by cities and counties on certificates that do not include immigration status. Do we really want to shift this function to the already bloated federal government? Would Mr. Trump hire federal officials to monitor maternity wards, verifying parental citizenship? What about illegal immigrants who are temporarily “legal” because they are exempt from deportation pending review, like the Rios-Pineda family mentioned above? Would their children be citizens?
In order to convert the legitimate anger and dismay of millions of us feel over uncontrolled immigration into votes for him, Mr. Trump invites negative reactions from Hispanic people toward all Republicans by focusing on something a President can’t change and, given the state of the law isn’t even worth fighting about. Indeed, if the border were secure, the relatively small number of births to illegal immigrants would fall nearly to zero leaving birthright citizenship a non-issue.
One of the reasons Republicans suffer election defeats is they get blamed for alleged harm done by their polices, when those policies were never implemented. For example, we’re told that Republican inspired “deregulation” caused the financial crisis of 2008 when no regulations were repealed and the real cause was federal regulatory interference in the mortgage lending business.
Let’s hope some of the other GOP candidates have the spine to challenge Mr. Trump’s reckless ideas before the GOP once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
President Obama and his media cheer leaders insist that his economic record should begin not at the beginning of his term but six months later when the recession ended and positive economic growth began. Thus, we mark June 2015 as the sixth anniversary of ObamaNomics. Our chart below measures the Obama era post-recession recovery, and every previous recovery exactly as he and his supporters want, starting at the first quarter of positive GDP growth after each recession.
According to the report published Thursday by the Commerce Department, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annualized rate of 2.3% in the second quarter, ending June 30th. This is about average for the past six years, but not nearly strong growth to begin a genuine recovery, restore the job market and expand prosperity. And, as the chart shows we’re still suffering through the weakest post-recession recovery since the government began issuing quarterly GDP reports 66 years ago.
Last fall the Administration spiked the football on news of two quarters in a row exceeding 4% growth. We were told the President’s policies were working and prosperity was growing. But the three quarterly reports since then average an unacceptable 1.66%. So there’s no celebratory talk from the White House this week.
The American economy, while the most resilient in human history, struggles under the weight of decades of accumulated government intervention in the form of excessive regulation, taxation, and bureaucratic mandates, the most recent being Obamacare and the massive, Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. These government intrusions into the private sector and the generally anti-business, anti-investment attitude of the Obama Administration discourages and deters entrepreneurs and investors, resulting in dramatically fewer of the business start-ups and expansions that create jobs and expand the economy.
Because Candidate Obama promised so much more than President Obama has delivered polls show voters are restive and dissatisfied. The clear, easily understood failure of Obama’s textbook, big government economic ideas is an historic opportunity for a Republican Presidential candidate, not only to win the election but to do so with a genuine mandate for reduction of federal taxes, regulation and intervention in the economy.
Income Inequality is NOT the reason millions of Americans suffer insufficient incomes or are unable to access economic opportunity. One person does not, by earning a high income, cause other people to earn low or no income.
The reason joblessness and middle class misery have been worse since the recession ended in 2009 than in any previous post-recession recovery is captured in this chart. It compares “Private Domestic Investment” during the recession and booming, post-recession economy of the 1980s with the recent recession and our current anemic, post-recession economy.“Private Domestic Investment” (PDI) (displayed in the chart) is a component of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as measured and reported quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. PDI is the sum of expenditures on capital goods, for productive, business activities. These investments include land, buildings, machinery, vehicles, computer technology, software, and equipment. NOT included in this measure are purchases of stocks bonds, and mutual funds.
Thus this statistic measures the heartbeat of a free market economy. These are the key job creation investments. These investments plus the work of entrepreneurs, owners, managers and employees provide all the goods and services we consume. Without capital investments there would be no consumer products or services, and there would be no jobs.
Like President Obama, President Reagan inherited a severe recession. By some measures the 1981-82 recession was worse than the 2008-09 recession. The unemployment rate was higher. Interest rates on mortgages and business loans soared into double digits. Home prices fell and there were waves of foreclosures.
But President Reagan’s economic strategies, based on his commitment to liberty, were exactly opposite of Obama’s.
- Sweeping income tax rate reductions. Every tax bracket rate from top to bottom was reduced by at least 25%. Tax cuts left capital in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors who had earned it and thus were best equipped to invest in job creating enterprises;
- Deregulation released the creative and productive energies of The People from the restraints of government interference.
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress did the opposite. Even though the economy was already over-regulated compared to the prosperous 1980s, they enacted additional, major, investment disincentives and barriers:
- Obamacare, increasing health insurance costs and imposing expensive mandates and hiring disincentives on employers,
- Dodd-Frank, an opaque, staggeringly large (2,300 pages) piece of legislation that created new regulatory agencies and tens of thousands of pages of new regulations restricting the financial sector,
- Tax increases that fall mostly on entrepreneurs and business owners.
The results of these opposite strategies are captured clearly in the chart above. PDI always declines during a recession. But as the chart shows Reagan’s policies generated the beginning of an investment increase even before the recession ended. In the third quarter of the Reagan era recovery PDI had come back to the prerecession level. But in the Obama era PDI wasn’t restored to prerecession levels until the seventeenth recovery quarter.
March 2015 was the end of the 23d recovery quarter and PDI was 7% above the prerecession level. But in the 23d quarter of the 1982-88 recovery PDI was 31% above prerecession levels.
Progressive or liberal politicians who tell middle class voters their lack of sufficient income is caused by others earning high incomes are the same politicians who are responsible for the expansion of government that has resulted in anemic private investment during the Obama era. They deliberately obscure the real problem, lack of investment, with emotional rhetoric about inequality, hoping to attract votes by generating anger and resentment against the very people who always fund nearly all of the private domestic investment tracked in the chart above, the rich – or the 1% – who got that way via business success.
With more robust, continuous growth in domestic investment, as there was in the 1980s, there would be more demand for employees which would result in more more jobs, and higher wages.
In the Obama Era, for the first time ever, a falling unemployment rate is an indicator of economic deterioration.
America is still in the depths of an unprecedented employment crisis. Yet our political leaders glibly claim the economy has recovered as they try desperately to divert our attention to distractions like confederate flags and global warming.
Late last week, as we all turned our attention to the holiday weekend, the Labor Department issued it’s monthly jobs report. The establishment media robotically chanted the White House scripted “good news” analysis, that 233,000 jobs were created in June and the unemployment rate edged down from 5.5% to 5.3%. President Obama’s policies of mega-borrowing, mega-spending, mega-regulation and government run health care were “working,” they claimed.
Other details not so widely reported included:
- April and May job creation numbers were revised downward by a total of 60,000, lowering the net gain for June to 163,000.
- The unemployment rate fell only because 432,000 jobless people were reclassified – moved from “unemployed” to “not in the labor force” – in one horrendous month! If those jobless men and women who counted as unemployed in May were still counted as unemployed in June, the unemployment rate would have been unchanged at 5.5%.
- Because 432,000 jobless people were reclassified from unemployed to not in the labor force, the labor force participation rate dropped to a 37 year low of 62.6% shown in the chart above.
- If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in June 2009 when the recession ended the June unemployment rate would have been 9.8%
- If the labor force participation rate were the same as it was in 2008, just before the recession started the June unemployment rate would be 10.4%.
The labor force participation rate (shown in the chart above) is the percentage of the working age population that is “in the labor force” either by holding a job or qualifying for the label of “unemployed” by actively seeking a job every week. As the chart above shows the participation rate has fallen precipitously since the end of the recession even as the Obama Administration has boasted of a steadily improving job market.
This decline in labor force participation is unprecedented. Nothing like this has ever happened before in the sixty eight years since the government began reporting these monthly statistics.
Why is this happening? The short answer is big government:
- Exploding regulations,
- the highest taxes on business in the developed world, and,
- the Obamacare mandates that impose new costs on employers, punishing them financially for hiring more people.
The quadrennial Presidential election campaign is a season when people who usually ignore politics pay at least some attention. It is imperative that our fellow voting citizens understand this jobs crisis and it’s causes. Republicans must nominate a candidate who is NOT comfortable with the big government status quo, who is driven to scale back government intervention in the economy, and who can explain, in soaring Churchillian speeches why America is in decline and what it will take to turn our situation around.
First in a series.
President Obama, Hillary Clinton, media commentators, and misguided Republicans blame income inequality for middle class hardship and a host of other problems, even the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign will allege that whoever becomes the Republican nominee caused or supports inequality and is therefore wicked and dishonorable
The President’s tweet needs context. “Fighting income inequality” is merely the current title of an old political tactic of the progressive left, telling voters who lack sufficient income to blame their distress on people with higher incomes.
Certainly Barack Obama has been a devotee of attracting votes by generating the base emotions of bitterness and resentment toward wealthier people since his community organizing days, before the term “fighting income inequality” became stylish.
In fact, “inequality” is really just a buzz word umbrella for a batch of election campaign themes – and lies – progressives have used for a century. First among them is the notion that high income people pay an insignificant share of total income taxes. For example, Stanley Greenberg who provides polling and strategy recommendations to Democrats recently wrote that”
the American people are ready to tax the richest and disrupt that group’s special deal with government
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was asked why he was waiting and had not yet endorsed his old friend Hillary Clinton to be the Democrats’ Presidential nominee:
I think progressives all over the country, I think everyday Americans are demanding that their candidates—the President and every other level—really say that we have a plan that we can believe in for addressing income inequality…It has to include the willingness to tax the wealthy… [emphasis added]
Phrases like “willingness to” or “ready to” tax the wealthy are designed to nudge the naive and uninformed toward the perception that wealthy people pay an miniscule share of total taxes or even no taxes at all. Because these assertions are heard so often most people perceive the wealthy as shouldering a far smaller share of the total tax burden than they actually do.
The pie charts above present IRS data to bring the tax burden of high income people into perspective. Because of America’s steeply progressive tax system the top 4% pay more than half – 56% – of all the income tax revenue the IRS collects. The data is from 2012, the last year for which the IRS has completed it’s reporting. The top two tax brackets were increased as of 2013. Thus, when the 2013 report is published it will probably show an even larger share paid by the very few at the top.
By the way, the bottom 62% of taxpayers, those earning $50,000 or less, pay 6.4% of all the income tax revenue the government collects.
It’s important to note that while they claim to be horrified by income inequality Democrats and progressives never propose laws to prevent people from earning high incomes. Why not? Two reasons:
- Most voters, even those who support progressives, admire and/or feel an affinity or kinship with some high income people such as Hollywood celebrities and pro athletes.
- The Massive Government machine progressive Democrats have manufactured has a rapacious appetite. As the charts above show the top 4% feed the machine more than half of all income tax revenue. So, while they bitterly complain about the rich earning “too much” Democrats desperately need the cash those rich folks provide to fund their multitudinous, government “programs.”
Democrats routinely blame high incomes earned by some people for less than sufficient incomes earned by other people. But there is no cause-effect connection. Complaining about “income inequality is simply the latest version of a decades old con progressives and Democrats use to attract the votes of people whose income is insufficient to support their needs or the lifestyle they desire.
The next post in this series will explore the value high income earners add to the American economy including making the existence of a middle class possible.
She began with a reference to a 1941 speech by President Roosevelt wherein he called for government to somehow guarantee “freedom from want.” She noted correctly that Mr. Roosevelt had “inspired presidents who followed” including her husband and Barack Obama.
She avoided an assessment of the Roosevelt inspired, six decade, big government campaign to buy “freedom from want” with trillions in resources extracted from the private economy that would otherwise have supported business investment, job creation and consumption of products and services.
Obviously, these lost trillions did not purchase “freedom from want.” America’s poverty rate was gradually declining before, but then stopped falling and has been virtually the same ince President Johnson launched his “war on poverty” panoply of programs six decades ago. But regardless of this cataclysmic government failure, Mrs. Clinton’s speech confirmed she is undeterred from continuing on the same programs and policies.
Astonishingly, right after praising Obama and other Presidents for being inspired by big government schemes from the 1940s she accused “the presidential Republicans choir” of singing “a song called Yesterday.”
You know the one — all our troubles look as though they’re here to stay … and we need a place to hide away… They believe in yesterday.
She then bellowed the perennial progressive sales pitch, rhetorical gimmicks and promises that literally date back a century: blame the rich, and promise freedom from financial distress in return for allowing government to tax more, borrow more, spend more and control more.
A key emotional appeal throughout the progressive’s century of expanding government’s power, cost and intrusion has been generating and nurturing resentment against the wealthy. Here’s another quote from Mrs. Clinton”s “re-launch” speech:
While many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined.
Let’s stop and explore this comparison. Unlike teachers hedge fund managers aren’t paid a fixed salary. Their earnings are from investments, with wide variations from year to year. The same article that was Mrs. Clinton’s data source, Institutional Investor Alpha’s annual Rich List report, also noted that only 13 of last year’s top 25 made the list this year.
Hedge fund managers must put their own money at risk continuously and it turns out that six of last year’s top 25 lost money this year – their incomes were less than zero. Each year, different people make the top 25 list. Some “hit the jackpot” only once and then fall back into obscurity.
Here’s a little thought experiment. Suppose it were possible to survey all of the 158,000 kindergarten teachers at the end of the year and identify the 25 who had the biggest one-year windfalls in addition to their salaries, from investments, or spouse’s business or inheritance, or maybe book royalties. If we compared our golden 25 teachers, to an average of all hedge fund managers, including the thousands who lost money, the teachers would look pretty good! But because everyone knows what teachers do and approximately what they get paid, we couldn’t use this data to attract votes by generating resentment against teachers.
But, since most people know little or nothing about what hedge fund managers do, only that they’re connected with Wall St, Mrs. Clinton is definitely using them to generate votes by planting the negative emotions of envy and resentment. She hopes to plant a perception in people who are struggling financially that the wealthy get that way by somehow robbing the rest of us of our just compensation.
But, note that progressives like Mrs. Clinton never try to provoke envy and resentment against high-paid athletes or actors or rock stars because voters are familiar those folks and mostly admire them. It’s harder to feel resentment and envy toward an attractive, high-visibility celebrity than a faceless investment manager, toiling out of sight, in a Wall St. office building. And, as an added bonus most celebrities favor Democrats with both vocal support and vast amounts of cash.