As reported by the Associated Press: Speaking before the Manchester School of Technology, a vocational school located in New Hampshire, Hillary commented…

TIME TO REVAMP SOCIETY…

“Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.”

Considering that all of her appearances are tightly controlled with little questioning from media or outsiders, someone should have asked the simple question: sharing — who is the donor and who is the recipient, and is such sharing based on the charitable impulses of an individual or mandated by some governmental wealth distribution program?

PLAYING THE CLASS CARD…

“The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an ‘on your own’ society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.”

This is a classic ploy to engage the masses. There are people who earn significantly more money than you, why shouldn’t they share some of those benefits with you?

WE’RE ALL ONE BIG FAMILY…

“I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

As if the government ever worked for all Americans. As for “special privileges for none” check the perks and protections afforded to legislators and those special interests who fill campaign coffers for access to politicians and/or who provide the actual legislation to be carried into Congress by bought-and-paid-for legislators.

FREE MARKETS WORK, BUT NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION…

“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

This is pure doublespeak meaning: free markets need controls!

RAISING TAX REVENUE BY CHANGING DEDUCTIBILITY INSTEAD OF TAX RATES

“Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.”

It’s not a tax increase if we keep the same rates, but reduce the deductible items, huh? The net effect is that people will pay more into government coffers. It is pure stupidity to speak about taxes in the context of corporations. It is a well known principal that “corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes.” Whatever taxes are imposed on a corporation will be passed along to the consumer in the form of price increases for products and services.

As for CEO pay, consider the executive who struggled to amass the skills and insight to propel their company from making $200 million to $3 billion dollars over twenty years — creating significant wealth for themselves and their stockholders. Who is to say this person’s salary should be examined and capped at some arbitrary multiple of the lowest earner in the organization? Does anybody say anything about Bill Clinton who reportedly made over $40 million dollars giving speeches and capitalizing on the benefits of a public office? According to Hillary’s standards, perhaps he should share more of that with the public — or avoid profiting from his elected office altogether. The trick is to try and collect any money from the Clintons. (Remember the alleged abuse of IRS audits and FBI files?)

PLAYING WITH THE TAX CODE AND PROVIDING HER BACKERS WITH FUNDING…

“Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.”

Who can forget Hillary-care when she tried to nationalize one-seventh of the American economy in a controlled healthcare plan that was viewed by most to be a move towards pure socialism? What were Bill Clinton’s accomplishments in bringing the United States closer to energy independence?

All-in-all, the election of Hillary Clinton would endorse the return of cronyism, ethical challenges and a host of other problems. Whatever you may think about Bill Clinton’s morals, he was smart, pragmatic and able to discuss political philosophy and legislative strategy with the best of the academics. Unfortunately, his tenure was distracted from accomplishing something that would have made John Kennedy proud.

Hillary was not the co-president, is shrewd (rather than smart), manipulative (rather than accommodating) and of questionable moral character. Those who claim a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill are sadly mistaken — she may very well dump him or make him a roving ambassador to keep him out of the limelight. I, for one, do not want the United States to be in the middle of that martial dispute.

In fact, when all is said and done, we are through with the Clintons — and the Bush regime — and are ready for a real leader who will unite rather than divide, a person who is seasoned and politically skillful, someone with down-home sensibilities and does not require anyone to explain the difference between proper and improper or between right or wrong.

What can YOU do?

Consider the character and ability of a candidate without any emotional attachment to a political party.

Review their history of legislation. See when and where they voted against their party to the benefit of the United States.

See where they crafted legislation instead of signing-on as a co-sponsor.

Look at the pork that they brought back to their home states.

Make an informed decision and VOTE.

Discuss the candidates with your friends. Note who is a rabid political partisan and shouts you down. See if you can come to an agreement with somebody of the opposite view: that it is time to put America before partisan politics.

Demand that each candidate stand for something, propose a plan — and send them your comments if they ignore the issues and run on the “we’re not them” platform.

Ask yourself: who will better protect the country?  Who will ease my tax burden?  Who will insure that opportunity continues to exist? Who will revive the cleanest, most economical energy source (nuclear) in the face of environmental agitators and anarchists?

Vote like it affects your life, as it surely will in this next political season.

— steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…