By
Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday,
January 21, 2016
Hillary
Clinton recently said she would go after offshore tax “schemes” in the
Caribbean. That is a worthy endeavor, given the loss of billions of dollars in
U.S. tax revenue.
Yet her
husband, Bill Clinton, reportedly made $10 million as an advisor and an
occasional partner in the Yucaipa Global Partnership, a fund registered in the
Cayman Islands.
Is Ms.
Clinton’s implicit argument that she knows offshore tax dodging is unethical
because her family has benefited from it? Does she plan to return millions of
dollars of her family’s offshore-generated income?
Clinton
is calling for “huge campaign-finance reform,” apparently to end the excessive
and often pernicious role of big money in politics. But no candidate,
Republican or Democrat, raised more than the $112 million that Clinton
collected in 2015 for her primary campaign.
In 2013,
Clinton earned nearly $1.6 million in speaking fees from Wall Street banks. She
raked in $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, and $225,000 apiece from Bank of America,
Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and UBS Wealth Management. Did that profiteering
finally make Clinton sour on Wall Street’s pay-for-play ethics?
Clinton
has also vowed to raise taxes on hedge-fund managers. Is that a way of
expressing displeasure with her son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, who operates a $400
million hedge fund?
For that
matter, how did Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, who worked for a consulting firm
and a hedge fund despite having no background in finance — reportedly become
worth an estimated $15 million?
Hillary
Clinton recently proposed a new $350 billion government plan to make college
more affordable. Certainly, universities spike tuition costs, and student-loan
debt has surpassed $1 trillion. Colleges spend money indiscriminately, mostly
because they know that the federal government will always back student loans.
Yet,
since she left office, Clinton routinely has charged universities $200,000 or
more for her brief 30-minute chats. Her half-hour fee is roughly equal to the
annual public-university tuition cost for eight students.
It’s
been said that Clinton is trying to rekindle President Obama’s 2012 allegations
of a Republican “war on women.” That charge and the war against the “1 percent”
helped deliver key states to Obama. Renewing that theme, Clinton recently
declared on Twitter, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported.”
Does
Clinton’s spirited advocacy of “every” survivor include the array of women who
have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct? In other words, does Hillary
now trust the testimonies of survivors such as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen
Willey, and Paula Jones, whose allegations must be “believed and supported?”
Ms.
Clinton has also called for more financial transparency and greater accountability
in general — something needed after scandals at government agencies such as the
IRS, VA, and GSA. But Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server probably
violated several federal laws. Her laxity with confidential communications was
arguably more egregious than that of General David Petraeus, a national icon
who pleaded guilty to mishandling classified materials.
Perhaps
Clinton assumes that the electorate is still in the ethical world of the 1990s.
Back then, it was somewhat easier to dampen scandals — at least the ones that
didn’t involve sex in the White House. But in the age of social media, 24-hour
cable TV, instantaneous blogging, and a different public attitude toward
political corruption and sexual assault, Hillary Clinton now appears to be caught
in the wrong century.
Womanizing
and sexual coercion can no longer be so easily dismissed. The financial antics
of the Clinton Foundation don’t pass muster amid populist anger at the global
profiteering of billionaires. In an age of instant Google searches, railing
against big money no longer squares with making and enjoying it.
Ms.
Clinton at times tries to offset scandals by pointing to her record as
secretary of state. But few believe that her handling of Russia, Iran, China,
Benghazi, or Islamic terrorism made the world calmer or America more secure.
In
debates, Clinton points to her support of Obama’s agenda. But the president
currently has an approval rating of 46 percent. If the country is in dire need
of Clinton’s suggested remedies, were the past eight years too short a time to
see similar reforms enacted under Obama?
All this
confusion raises the question of whether Hillary Clinton is running to complete
Bill Clinton’s third term, running to cement Barack Obama’s legacy — or running
against her prior self.
No comments:
Post a Comment