Today’s paragraphs come to us from long-time columnist Cal Thomas.

Mr. Thomas has written an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech – one which, unlike the love-filled fawning of so many other media people, actually goes beyond the relentless talking points and applause lines to see what she actually was promising.

Here is what he reminded us of:

What would an acceptance speech by a Democrat be without promises of more programs? She’d have done better listing past and current programs that have not worked and vowing to get rid of them. But that’s not the way of Democrats. They pile on more programs so distracted voters won’t notice the failure of the old ones. For the left, intentions matter more than results.

Hillary Clinton’s proposals will add hugely to the debt, now approaching $20 trillion. But wait. She will pay for all this new stuff by taxing those obscenely wealthy Wall Street people, who paid her and her husband millions to speak to them. No one knows what about. She won’t release the transcripts.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has analyzed Clinton’s proposed $1 trillion list of tax increases. They include:

— Increasing income taxes by $350 billion in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

— Businesses would be slapped with a tax hike of $250 billion through “undefined business tax reform.”

— There’s the euphemistically named “fairness tax” of $400 billion she says would restore “basic fairness” to our tax code and an increase in the death tax. Real fairness would eliminate the undecipherable tax code and replace it with a fair tax, but Democrats would never go for that.

ATR notes: “…there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.” 

Did you realize that this is what Ms. Clinton proposed?  What she will inflict on the shrinking percentage of citizens who earn enough money to have more squeezed out of them?

Or did you just rely on her adoring media to tell you how great this speech was, how great Hillary Clinton is, how great Democrats are, at least compared to Republicans?

(The word historic was also used relentlessly – but I wonder if it meant Hillary Clinton is the first female major party candidate, or that she’s been around so long no one can remember when she wasn’t).

I award Cal Thomas Paragraphs Of The Day honors for seeing through this mess and talking not in abstractions and superlatives, but about what Hillary Clinton actually said she would do.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for forcing us to think about what kind of condition our country will be in if she actually wins, and tries implementing it all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *