Before last week, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee for the Democratic party.
Then Iowa happened.
After hours of counting votes — and yes, even flipping coins — Clinton barely defeated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is, as you may have heard, a self-described Socialist) to “win” the Iowa caucuses. It was a showing much weaker than anyone had expected, opening the former First Lady to more attacks as the election shifts focus to New Hampshire.
What is Socialism? Would it work in America?
One of the attacks that has dogged her throughout the campaign has been her “close ties to Wall Street“. The problem, they say, is that Clinton has made millions from Wall Street firms — in the form of campaign contributions, speaking fees, and contributions to the Clinton’s family foundation.
The attack implies that the former Senator is too close and cozy with the fat cats on Wall Street to do what government needs to do — namely, increase taxes, impose new regulations, and take control of big banks and other big businesses.
That’s the attack on Clinton’s ties with Wall Street — blaming Wall Street for corrupting the system.
But that attack really, actually, totally misses the point.
The problem is not Wall Street. It’s Washington.
Here’s an outrageous thought: what if Washington didn’t have the power to tilt the scales for big businesses, big industries, or close friends and special interests?
What if Washington didn’t force every business in America to comply with thousands of pages of regulations?
What if Washington didn’t make it harder (or, in some industries, impossible) to start a business?
Follow the money and it all starts to make sense. Big businesses give big money to politicians because big government is constantly breathing down their throats, regulating their every move.
Big government also has the power to regulate new businesses. Since government can make it harder for new businesses to get started, well sure, that makes for less competition.
The problem isn’t Hillary Clinton taking money from Wall Street. The problem is government having so much power over every dollar that changes hands in America that businesses are motivated to shell out the money in the first place.
Since Barack Obama became president, more than $23 billion has been spent lobbying a growing government creating thousands of new regulations.
The increase in regulations, the decline of business startups and the increasing money spent on lobbying… which direction does it point?
This probably isn’t a thought you’ll hear in the Democratic primary…
What do you think? Is the problem Hillary Clinton taking Wall Street money, or Washington having too much power? Would you rather have a future where being successful means building a business from the ground up, based on creativity and innovation, or one where success means having the power to regulate from the top-down, writing the rules to benefit special interests?