Subject: Economic Framework Clips Post Speech 7.13.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:02:04 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK SPEECH CLIPS*

*July 13, 2015*

*HRC National
Coverage.............................................................................
**4*

Clinton calls for ‘growth and fairness economy,’ vows Wall Street crackdown
// WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 13,
2015.................................................................................................................................
4

Clinton’s economic platform DOA in today’s Congress // WaPo // Kelsey Snell
– July 13, 2015... 7

Tax and Budget: Hillary wants to reform the capital gains rate, and
Democrats want details on federal contracts for inverted companies // WaPo
// Kelsey Snell – July 13, 2015................................ 10

Hillary Clinton’s economic ideas would be big for Latinos. That’s not a
coincidence. // WaPo // Janell Ross – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
10

Four ways Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Bernie Sanders on Monday
// WaPo // Amber Phillips – July 13,
2015................................................................................................................................
12

Hillary Clinton signals how she’ll attack Republicans on the economy //
WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 13,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
14

Why Hillary Clinton made gender such a big deal in her major economic
speech // WaPo // Danielle Paquette – July 13,
2015......................................................................................................................
16

The hard questions that Hillary’s speech on the economy left unanswered //
WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 13,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
17

Hillary Clinton Economic Plan Emphasizes Growth and Increasing Wages // WSJ
// Laura Meckler – July 13,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
19

Hillary Clinton to Propose Tax Breaks for Firms Sharing Profits With
Employees // WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 13,
2015.........................................................................................................................
21

Clinton to Bush: American workers need a raise // AP // Ken Thomas and Jill
Colvin – July 13, 2015           22

Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for Promoting Inequality // NYT // Amy
Chozick – July 13, 2015          24

Hillary Clinton Speech Is Not Expected to Dwell on Wall Street // NYT //
Amy Chozick – July 13, 2015      26

Hillary Clinton, Unapologetic Grandma // NYT // Anna North – July 13,
2015......................... 27

Clinton to lay out economic vision in New York speech, will point to
husband’s 2 terms // AP // Ken Thomas – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
28

Clinton goes heavy on economic politics, light on policy // Politico //
Annie Karni and Glenn Thrush – July 13,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
29

What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about job creation // Politico // Danny
Vinik – July 13, 2015.. 31

Clinton speech react: ‘Is that it?’ // Politico // Ben White – July 13,
2015................................. 32

Hillary takes new shot at Jeb's 'longer hours' comment // Politico // Nick
Gass – July 13, 2015 36

Clinton bashes Wall Street, pledges U.S. income equality // Reuters //
Luciana Lopez and Jonathan Allen – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
36

Hillary Clinton is about to lay out her economic vision // Reuters – July
13, 2015.................... 38

Clinton to propose tax incentives to encourage companies to share profits:
aide // Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
38

Hillary Clinton calls for greater U.S. income equality // Reuters //
Luciana Lopez & Jonathan Allen – July 13,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
39

Hillary Clinton To Put Wages At Heart Of Economic Policy // Reuters – July
13, 2015.............. 40

Hillary Clinton Runs as Obama-Plus // Bloomberg // Francis Wilkinson – July
13, 2015.......... 41

A Sneak Peek at Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan // Bloomberg // Richard
Rubin – July 13, 2015 43

Behind Hillary Clinton’s High Praise for a Republican Wall Street Guru //
Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
44

Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton’s Economic Attacks on Top Republican Rivals
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
46

Hillary Clinton Vows to Revamp Wall Street // Bloomberg // Kim Chipman –
July 13, 2015..... 48

Hillary Clinton to Propose Incentives for Corporate Profit Sharing //
Bloomberg News // Jennifer Epstein – July 13,
2015........................................................................................................................
49

Hillary Clinton Says She'll Focus on Growing the Middle Class // Bloomberg
// Jennifer Epstein – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
49

Clinton pivots left in first economic address // McClatchy // Kevin Hall –
July 13, 2015........... 50

Hillary Clinton’s New Mantra: It’s the Wages, Stupid // TIME // Michael
Scherer – July 13, 2015 51

What to Know About Hillary Clinton’s Economic Proposals // TIME // Sam
Frizell – July 13, 2015                53

Hillary Clinton Will Pledge Profit-Sharing Incentives to Boost Wages //
TIME // Sam Frizell – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
55

Shrinking Paychecks: Hillary Clinton Tackles 2016’s Toughest Economic
Question // NPR // Danielle Kurtzleben – July 13,
2015....................................................................................................
56

Hillary Clinton Puts Paycheck Feminism at the Center of Her Economic Agenda
// The Nation // Michelle Goldberg – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................
58

Hillary Clinton draws contrast with Republicans as she lays out economic
plan // LA Times // Evan Halper and Michael A. Memoli – July 13,
2015..................................................................................
60

Hillary Clinton to tout profit sharing as a way to reduce income disparity
// LA Times // Evan Halper – July 13,
2015................................................................................................................................
62

What’s Hillary Clinton really trying to do with the economy? // Boston
Globe // Evan Horowitz – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
63

Hillary Clinton Attacks Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Economic
Policy Speech // ABC // Liz Kreutz – July 13,
2015...........................................................................................................
65

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy' // NBC News
// Carrie Dann – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
66

In economic address, Hillary Clinton calls out ‘gig’ economy // CNBC //
Kate Rogers – July 13, 2015           67

Hillary Clinton shows she’s really a liberal on economics // Vox //
Jonathan Allen – July 13, 2015                69

Hillary Clinton just embraced one of Elizabeth Warren’s main criticisms of
Obama // Vox // Matthew Yglesias – July 13,
2015......................................................................................................................
72

Hillary Clinton to Jeb Bush: American workers “don’t need a lecture, they
need a raise” // Vox // Jonathan Allen – July 13,
2015.............................................................................................................
73

Hillary Clinton’s new paleo-liberalism // VOX // Matthew Yglesia – July 13,
2015................... 74

Hillary Clinton dodges left and jabs right // CNN // Jeff Zeleny and Eric
Bradner – July 13, 2015 76

Hillary Clinton's economic pitch: Americans 'need a raise' // CNN // Eric
Bradner – July 13, 2015 78

Clinton to urge firms to expand profit-sharing with workers, in economic
address // Fox – July 13, 2015    81

Hillary Clinton's 'new' economic agenda shouldn't fool anyone. It's just
recycled rhetoric that hasn't worked // Fox // Stephen Moore – July 13,
2015....................................................................................
82

Hillary Clinton unveils her vision for the economy // CBS // Rebecca Kaplan
and Steve Chaggaris – July 13,
2015....................................................................................................................................
83

Hillary Clinton Focuses On Middle-Class Wages In Sweeping Economic Policy
Speech // HuffPo // Samantha Lachman – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................
85

Hillary Clinton: Wage Growth Is The “Defining” Economic Problem Today //
BuzzFeed // Ruby Cramer – July 13,
2015...............................................................................................................................
88

Hillary Channels Her Inner Springsteen // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi –
July 13, 2015............. 90

The Numbers Behind Hillary Clinton’s Economic Vision // Five Thirty Eight
// Ben Casselman and Andrew Flowers – July 13,
2015.........................................................................................................
91

Clinton won’t push Glass-Steagall bank bill // The Hill // Peter Schroeder
– July 13, 2015........ 96

Clinton to Bush: Workers need raise, not lecture // The Hill // Ben Kamisar
– July 13, 2015..... 97

GOP field knocks Clinton on sharing economy // The Hill // Mario Trujillo –
July 13, 2015....... 98

Veering left, Hillary Clinton puts profit-sharing in economic plan // The
Hill // Ben Kamisar – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
99

Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words // Mother Jones
// Kevin Drum – July 13,
2015............................................................................................................................................
99

Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She’s Not Jeb Bush, and She’s a Lot like
Elizabeth Warren // Mother Jones // Patrick Caldwell – July 13,
2015..............................................................................
101

Hillary Slaps Wall Street, Demands Companies Share Profits // Washington
Times // Joseph Curl – July 13,
2015...................................................................................................................................
102

Details of Hillary Clinton’s liberal economic platform leaked // The
Washington Times // S.A. Milller – July 13,
2015...................................................................................................................................
103

Hillary Clinton’s economic speech is heavy on attacking Republicans //
Washington Times // S.A. Miller – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
105

Hillary hits Clinton Foundation donor in economic speech // Washington
Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 13,
2015..............................................................................................................................
106

Hillary Clinton talks economics at New School in New York City // NY Daily
News // Cameron Joseph – July 13,
2015..............................................................................................................................
107

Uber may become an issue in the US presidential race as Hillary Clinton
vows to crack down on worker ‘misclassificiation’ // Business Insider //
Nathan Mcalone – July 13, 2015............................. 107

Heckler ejected from Hillary Clinton speech after interrupting to ask about
Wall Street regulation // Business Insider // Colin Campbell & Hunter
Walker – July 13, 2015.................................................. 108

Hillary Clinton just gave a big economic speech // Business Insider //
Brett Logiurato – July 13, 2015       109

Hillary Clinton just called out the economic problem of the next decade //
Business Insider // Shane Ferro – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
110

Here are the 3 Republicans that Hillary Clinton took big shots at during
her major economic speech // Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 13,
2015.................................................................. 111

Hillary Clinton’s Economic Intervention Agenda Unveiled // Forbes // Clyde
Wayne Crews Jr. – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
112

Hillary Clinton vows to give workers a raise // Fortune // Tory Newmyer –
July 13, 2015........ 118

12 Progressive Promises From Hillary Clinton’s Economic Speech // Rolling
Stone // Tim Dickinson – July 13,
2015...................................................................................................................................
119

Hillary Clinton Tells Progressives: Trust Me, Trust Me, Trust Me // Gawker
// Hamilton Nolan – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
121

Hillary Clinton vows crackdown on Wall Street risk-taking // Financial
Times // Megan Murphy – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
123

Millennial Shock: Hillary to Attack Uber, AirBnB, ‘Sharing Economy’ //
Breitbart // Joel Pollack – July 13,
2015...................................................................................................................................
124

In Economic Address, Hillary Clinton Threads the Needle // Newsweek //
Taylor Wofford – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
126

Hillary Clinton: 'Mission' to boost middle-class incomes // Newsday //
David Schwartz & Laura Figueroa – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
127

The era of small government is over: Hillary tacks left, while the right
trots out bankrupt arguments // Salon // Simon Maloy – July 13,
2015............................................................................................
128

The Best Quotes From Hillary Clinton's Speech That Outlined Her Seriously
Feminist Economic Vision // Bustle // Josephine Yurcaba – July 13,
2015.........................................................................
129

Clinton: Why training for the new economy is key // Wired // Issie Lapowsky
– July 13, 2015. 130

Hillary Clinton Will Crack Down On Contractor Economy // Wired // Issie
Lopowsky – July 13, 2015           131

Hillary Clinton Says On-Demand Economy Raises Hard Questions About
Workplace Protections // TechCrunch // Josh Constine – July 13,
2015........................................................................
131

Hillary Clinton takes aim at Uber economy in speech // Market Watch //
Robert Schroeder – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
132

Hillary Clinton tackles Republican rivals head-on in economic speech //
Guardian // Sabrina Siddiqui – July 13,
2015..............................................................................................................................
133

Hillary Clinton knows: the real face of low labor force participation is
female // Guardian // Jessica Valenti – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
135

Clinton unveils economic plan, calls for corporate profit sharing // USA
Today // David Jackson – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
136

Hillary Clinton Boosts Workers, Blasts Uber // US News // Tim Risen – July
13, 2015............ 137

Clinton Proposes ‘Fairness’ Economy, Swats Republicans // US News // David
Catanese – July 13, 2015   139

Hillary Clinton takes aim at Jeb Bush, and at America’s falling rate of
participation in the workforce // Quartz // Tim Fernholz – July 13,
2015............................................................................................
141

Hillary Clinton: Here’s how I’d run the economy // CS Monitor // Peter
Grief – July 13, 2015.. 142

Hillary Clinton’s answer to the wage gap: Profit-sharing? // CS Monitor //
Jessica Mendoza – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
143

Hillary Clinton Unveils Economic Agenda, but Can’t Shake Wall Street
Questions // National Journal // Emma Roller – July 13,
2015................................................................................................
145

Hillary Clinton unveils economic plan with jabs at Wall St and her
opponents // Telegraph // Peter Foster – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
146

Hillary Clinton wants to raise wages for women and average Americans //
Independent // Justin Carissimo – July 13,
2015.......................................................................................................................
148

Hillary Clinton: America is leaving ‘talent on the sidelines’ by limiting
women at work // Mashable // Megan Specia – July 13,
2015..........................................................................................................
149

The Uber economy worries Hillary Clinton a little // Mashable // Seth
Figerman – July 13, 2015 150

7 Feminist Aspects Of Hillary Clinton’s Economic Plan That Would Change
Everything For Women In America // Bustle // Kendyl Kearly – July 13,
2015............................................................................
151

It’s the [Sharing] Economy, Stupid // Medium // Damian O’Doherty – July 13,
2015.............. 153

Hillary Clinton Touts Banking Reform And Bashes HSBC, Despite Clinton
Charitable Foundation Taking Money From The Bank In 2014 // IB Times //
Clark Mindock – July 13, 2015.......................... 155

Hillary Clinton Uses First Economic Speech to Attack Top GOP Opponents //
The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July 13,
2015..............................................................................................................................
156

*HRC National Coverage*

*Clinton calls for ‘growth and fairness economy,’ vows Wall Street
crackdown
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-calls-for-growth-and-fairness-economy-vows-wall-street-crackdown/2015/07/13/15d42d18-296b-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html>
// WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 13, 2015 *

In her most sweeping policy address to date, Democratic presidential
front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday presented her vision for a
“growth and fairness economy” built on rising incomes for middle-class
workers and vowed an aggressive crackdown on Wall Street.

Even as she outlined progressive policies she hoped would motivate liberal
Democratic primary voters, Clinton attacked three leading Republican
candidates by name for economic agendas she said would benefit corporations
and wealthy people at the expense of ordinary workers.

“Today, as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer term challenges come
into focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,”
Clinton said. “You can’t have one without the other.”

She added, “The defining economic challenge of our time is clear: We must
raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class
life.. . .That will be my mission from the first day I’m president to the
last.”

Clinton’s 45-minute speech Monday morning, delivered in a formal setting at
the New School, a progressive college in Greenwich Village, is intended to
form the basis of her campaign for the months to come.

With liberals openly concerned about her historic coziness with Wall Street
— and with her insurgent primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.),
drawing thousands at his rallies by railing against big banks — Clinton
struck a tough tone on the financial industry.

Clinton asserted that many institutions are “too complex and too risky” and
promised to go further than President Obama has both in regulating the
industry and in prosecuting its bad players. As president, she said, she
would appoint and empower regulators who understand that “too big to fail
is still too big a problem.” And she promised to ensure that the financial
markets “work for everyday investors, not just high-risk traders.”

“Too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with
limited consequences or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the
gains,” Clinton said. “This is wrong. And on my watch, it will change.. . .We
will prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud.”

But Clinton may not have presented an aggressive enough Wall Street agenda
to satisfy some liberals. As she concluded her speech, one man stood in the
auditorium and shouted repeatedly, “Senator Clinton, will you restore
Glass-Steagall?,” a reference to a 1990s-era law that restricted banking
activities. Clinton gave no answer as Secret Service agents encircled the
man and others in the crowd applauded loudly to drown him out.

Clinton also tackled the so-called sharing economy, epitomized by companies
like Uber and Aibnb. She said such firms were “polarizing our economy” by
displacing or down-grading blue-collar jobs that once provided solid
incomes.

“This on-demand or so-called ‘gig’ economy is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it’s also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future,” she said.

Later this week, perhaps to drive a contrast with Clinton, former Florida
governor Jeb Bush plans to order an Uber ride on his phone during a visit
to Silicon Valley.

In her remarks, Clinton tried to draw a contrast more with Republicans than
with other Democrats. She argued that more than three decades of Republican
“trickle-down” policies of cutting taxes and loosening corporate
regulations have resulted in rising debt and have not helped workers.

“Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic president has had to come in
and clean up the mess,” she said.

Clinton singled out Bush for having said last week that people should “work
longer hours” to boost the economy. He has clarified that he was referring
to part-time workers who want to work longer hours, but Clinton seized on
the remark nonetheless.

“He must not have met very many American workers,” Clinton said. “Let him
tell that to the nurse that stands on her feet all day or the teacher that
is in that classroom or the trucker that drives all night. . . They don’t
need a lecture. They need a raise.”

Bush spokesperson Allie Bradenburger responded by saying Clinton is
offering “antiquated proposals” that “protect the special interests that
want to stifle American ingenuity.”

Clinton attacked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), another leading GOP candidate,
for his tax plan. She said that his proposal would cut taxes for a
household making $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which she noted was
exponentially more than the annual earnings of a typical family.

“That’s a sure budget-busting give-a-way to the super wealthy,” Clinton
said.

She also went after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who will formally
launch his campaign Monday afternoon.

“Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names stomping on
worker’s rights,” Clinton said. Promising to defend collective bargaining,
she added, “I will fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided
attacks.”

Clinton’s speech was heavy on thematic vision, but light on specifics. She
said she would roll out more detailed policy prescriptions over the course
of the summer on issues such as college affordability.

The campaign of one Democratic challenger, Martin O’Malley, tried to
contrast Clinton’s remarks with the detailed economic plan the former
Maryland governor already has laid out.

In a statement issued following Clinton’s speech, O’Malley spokeswoman Lis
Smith said: “Rebuilding the American Dream will take more than vague
promises. That’s why Governor O’Malley has set bold, progressive, and
specific goals to make our economy work for more Americans.”

Much of Clinton’s agenda includes priorities that have shaped Obama’s
second term priorities and issues Democratic congressional candidates
highlighted in the 2014 midterm campaigns. This includes her focus on pay
equity for women, paid maternal leave and sick days and expanding access to
childcare.

“We should make it easier for Americans to be both good workers and good
parents and caregivers,” Clinton said. She added, “I am well aware that for
far too long these challenges have been dismissed by some as women’s
issues. Well, those days are over.”

But Clinton previewed some new ideas, too, such as a corporate profit
sharing plan she said she would expound upon during a visit to New
Hampshire on Thursday.

“Hard working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they help produce,” she said. “So I will propose ways to encourage
companies to share profits with their employees. That’s good for workers
and good for businesses.”

*Clinton’s economic platform DOA in today’s Congress
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/13/clintons-economic-platform-doa-in-todays-congress/>
// WaPo // Kelsey Snell – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton on Monday outlined a wide-ranging list of economic
proposals that focus on creating more opportunities for low-and-middle
income earners while raising their wages, a populist message that could
also appeal to more moderate voters during the general election.

Many of the ideas laid out by the front-runner to be the Democrat’s
presidential nominee in 2016 are variations on policy goals that have been
put forward in the past by progressive Democrats, such as Sens. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), while others are similar to
proposals pitched by President Obama. Others looked to expand on laws
enacted during Obama’s time in office.

If conventional wisdom holds and Republicans continue to control Congress
after the 2016 elections — or at least the House — than many of the ideas
discussed by Clinton will be dead on arrival.

Sign up for The Daily 202, The Washington Post’s new political tipsheet

While Clinton didn’t offer too many specifics, what follows is a look at
how some of the ideas she discussed Monday have fared in Congress in recent
years and whether they would have much of a chance under a President
Clinton.

Minimum wage increase and worker protections. Clinton pitched a long list
of policies aimed at middle-class workers, including a minimum wage hike,
paid family leave and preventing employers from classifying employees as
contractors to avoid paying benefits and overtime.

“We do have to raise the minimum wage, and implement President Obama’s new
rules on overtime, and then we have to go further,” Clinton said.

Clinton could build on Obama’s executive orders to expand leave time and
increase wages for federal workers and empower the Labor Department to
crack down on employee misclassification, but she would need Congress to
approve a broader wage hike.

That would not be easy to do.

Republicans fought off legislation last year that would have gradually
increased the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour over the
course of more than two years.

Democrats had a majority in the Senate at the time and still failed to get
the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster of the bill.
Chances of rallying support with Republicans in both the House and Senate
are slim, but Jared Bernstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities said a wage increase could gain support if the economy continues
to improve.

“Both Bush presidents passed minimum wage increases,” said Bernstein, a
former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. “There would be a
fight over how much it would be increased and what conservatives would get
in return but it is not impossible.”

Student loan refinancing. Clinton embraced an idea pushed by progressives
like Warren and Sanders that would allow people with student loan debt to
refinance their loans at current market rates. The plan has been popular
with young voters who have amassed tens of thousands of dollars in debt to
finance the rising cost of a college education.

While the proposal sounds good on the campaign trail, many Republicans say
that student loan debt needs to be addressed as a part of complete higher
education overhaul bill, making the proposal’s path through Congress more
difficult. Republicans earlier this year blocked a Warren-sponsored budget
amendment that would set lower rates for all borrowers, including a
slightly higher rate for graduate students.

“The nature of these changes is they do not help people get into college,
complete more quickly and get jobs,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of
the conservative American Action Forum and former economic adviser for John
McCain during his 2008 presidential bid. Lowering interest rates for
student loan debt “is a windfall for people who already have jobs.”

Increasing taxes on investment earnings and the wealthy. If Clinton’s talk
of making the wealthy pay more in taxes by, for example, ending breaks
enjoyed by hedge-fund managers sounds familiar it’s because it’s an Obama
talking point straight out of the 2012 election.

But many of the tax ideas she ticked off Monday have been rejected by
Republicans in Congress.

Clinton backed the Buffett rule, named for billionaire investor Warren
Buffett who famously lamented paying a lower tax rate than his secretary,
that would impose a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on earnings over $1
million. The idea never went anywhere in Congress.

She also proposed closing the so-called carried interest loophole, which
allows investment managers to classify some, if not most, of their income
as capital gains interest so they can pay lower taxes on those earnings.
Clinton paired that proposal with a pitch to make it harder for wealthy
financial advisers to avoid taxes.

Most Democrats love the proposals but they have virtually no chance of
getting any Republican support. Obama and Senate Democrats increased the
capital gains rate from 15 percent to 20 percent as part of the “fiscal
cliff” deal reached in the final hours of 2012. Republicans grudgingly gave
in then but have vowed to fight back against any attempt to increase this
rate in the future.

Strengthening Dodd-Frank and cracking down on Wall Street. Clinton may have
spent years representing Wall Street banks and traders as a senator from
New York, but presidential candidate Clinton embraced putting more rules on
the financial sector saying there is a need to “go beyond” the 2010
Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

“Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too
risky,” she said. “Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the
so-called shadow banking system, including hedge funds, high-frequency
traders, non- bank finance companies.”

Some Republican agree with liberal critics of Wall Street that “too big to
fail” banks remain, but Republicans are unlikely to agree to new
regulations after spending years arguing that Dodd-Frank is hurting lending
and the broader economy.

Clinton appeared to have this criticism in mind when she made clear her
intent is not to target the more traditional banking industry that focuses
on such things as mortgages and business loans.

“We can do that, and still ease burdens on community banks to encourage
responsible loans to local people and businesses they know and trust,” she
said.

Clinton also hit on an issue that has led both Democrats and Republicans to
criticize Obama’s Justice Department: The lack of criminal convictions
stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.

“While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt,
too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with
limited consequences or none at all, even when they have already pocketed
the gains,” she said. “This is wrong, and on my watch it will change.”

Immigration reform. The one issue that has a good chance in a Clinton
presidency is also the one that failed most dramatically during Obama’s
presidency: immigration reform.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed bipartisan immigration legislation in 2013
after months of negotiations led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.). The bill had the support of the business community, the
Obama administration and 68 Senators. What it didn’t have was the backing
of House conservatives.

Support has shifted in recent months and there is wide recognition among
many in the House that immigration reform is necessary if not inevitable,
said Holtz-Eakin. He said there is bipartisan support for rethinking the
immigration system but there is too much bad blood between this Congress
and Obama over this issue.

“The last attempt came on the heels of a long period of tension between the
White House and Congress and they did not trust him,” Holtz-Eakin said.
“New Congress, new president, you try again.”

Clinton, however, didn’t offer many specifics on Monday and the details of
any immigration plan are what will be most contentious.

*Tax and Budget: Hillary wants to reform the capital gains rate, and
Democrats want details on federal contracts for inverted companies
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/13/tax-and-budget-hillary-wants-to-reform-the-capital-gains-rate-and-democrats-want-details-on-federal-contracts-for-inverted-companies/>
// WaPo // Kelsey Snell – July 13, 2015 *

HILLARY TO PITCH CAP GAINS REVAMP. Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to
outline her economic agenda Monday at 10 a.m., and early documents obtained
by Reuters show part of that plan is rethinking the capital gains rate.
Reuters cites a memo that reads:

“In the coming weeks, she will outline specific policies—for example, by
reforming capital gains taxation—that will seek to counter the effect of
this short-term focus.”

The idea of reforming taxes on income from investments is not new for
Democrats. President Obama and Senate Democrats increased the rate from 15
to 20 percent as part of the “fiscal cliff” deal reached in the final hours
of 2012. Republicans grudgingly gave in on the tax rate but have vowed to
fight back against any attempt to increase the rate in the future.

*Hillary Clinton’s economic ideas would be big for Latinos. That’s not a
coincidence.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/13/hillary-clintons-economic-ideas-would-be-big-for-latinos-thats-no-coincidence/>
// WaPo // Janell Ross – July 13, 2015 *

On Monday morning, Hillary Clinton laid out how she would narrow economic
inequality and deal with the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. And
later Monday, she'll head to the National Council of La Raza convention in
Kansas City and likely repeat many of the same themes.

And maybe that's a coincidence of scheduling, but it's no coincidence that
a lot of Clinton's proposals would be particularly beneficial to workers of
color -- especially Latinos.

Here's the crux of what Clinton is talking about Monday:

As part of her workforce focus, Clinton will decry that women’s
participation in the workforce has stalled after decades of growth and that
many working parents, especially single mothers, have passed up job
opportunities because of family obligations. She will preview policies on
child care, paid leave and paid sick days.

Clinton’s second area of focus is reducing income inequality. She will
assert that the current economy unfairly rewards some work, such as
financial trading, more than other work. She will celebrate Obama’s new
rules on overtime but also urge raising the minimum wage and overhauling
the tax code to make the wealthiest Americans pay what she considers their
fair share. She will also back collective bargaining and reducing
health-care costs.

...

Clinton will introduce these ideas in Monday’s speech and then roll out
more detailed prescriptions on issues such as college affordability, paid
leave, wage growth and corporate accountability throughout the summer.

Clinton's speech at The New School in New York City and her policy
proposals have been billed as ideas that will benefit the middle class. But
during her speech, Clinton herself made some explicit references to workers
of color. And Latino workers make up one of the fastest-growing segments of
the workforce but are concentrated in lower-paying jobs with limited
benefits. Hence, the kind of jobs that benefit most from things like paid
sick leave, child care and maternity leave.

Here's what you need to know to understand why Clinton's policy ideas may
have particular meaning to Latino voters.

Latinos made up about 16.6 percent of the American workforce in June.
That's a figure that's expected to climb to nearly 20 percent within the
next five years.

In 2011, when the U.S. Labor Department's statistical arm completed a deep
dive on Latino workers in the recovery, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
found that about 20 percent of Latino workers over the age of 16 were
employed part-time. More recent figures from 2014 indicate that the portion
working part-time has grown to nearly 23 percent of the Hispanic labor
force. But the majority told the government's statistics team they were
doing so for non-economic reasons such as the need to care for young
children or older family members. So child-care issues and family
responsibilities weigh heavily on Latino workers.

While the gap between white, black and Latino high school graduates going
on to college has nearly disappeared, the portion of Latinos who graduate
continues to lag further than every other group. In that 2011 look at
Latino workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that only one in six
-- about 17 percent -- of Latinos 25 or older have completed a bachelor's
degree.

This pattern is part of the reason that the majority of Latino workers --
about 58 percent -- are employed in the service industry, construction,
maintenance, transportation and production industries and a far smaller
portion -- about 32 percent-- work in professional or management jobs.

That also means that large numbers of Latino workers do not enjoy benefits
that for many white-collar American workers are now part of the norm such
as paid sick time, paid vacation days, partially paid maternity and/or
paternity leave, extended time off to care for a sick relative or attend to
their own serious health challenges and employer-provided health or life
insurance.

The industries in which Latino workers are clustered also explains part of
the yawning wage gaps between white workers and workers of color --
particularly Latinas. Latinas employed full-time earn about 56 cents to
every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men employed full time,
according to a National Women's Law Center analysis of 2013 Census data.
That's compared to 64 cents on the dollar for full-time black female
workers and 77 cents for white women working full time.

With  that reality mind, the Clinton campaign knows that Clinton needs
Latino workers who are also registered voters to turn out to vote in the
upcoming Democratic primaries and the general election, should she make it
that far. For Obama, some of these workers helped him win key swing states
such as Nevada and Florida in 2008 and 2012.

*Four ways Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Bernie Sanders on Monday
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/13/4-ways-hillary-clinton-distanced-herself-from-bernie-sanders-on-monday/>
// WaPo // Amber Phillips – July 13, 2015 *

From calling for raising middle-class wages to announcing a plan to share
corporate profits with workers and go after Wall Street criminals, Hillary
Clinton gave a remarkably populist/liberal speech Monday laying out her
economic policies.

The 2016 Democratic frontrunner is highlighting her progressive bona fides
on everything from social to economic issues as she contrasts herself with
an increasingly conservative Republican field.

But she's also facing a stronger-than-expected challenge from the left in
the form of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The socialist is drawing large
crowds across the country with his populist Robin Hood-style message of
taking income from the rich and giving it to the poor and cracking down
hard on Wall Street.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says former Florida
governor Jeb Bush (R) doesn't understand the plight of American workers,
telling supporters in an economic speech, "They don't need a lecture. They
need a raise." (AP)

Sanders isn't a real threat yet to her path to the nomination, but Clinton
most certainly had his adoring crowds in the back of her mind as she laid
out her campaign's major economic policy points. Here's four ways she tried
to differentiate herself from Sanders.

1. She's focusing more on policies to lift up women

Key quote: "For far too long these challenges have been dismissed by some
as women's issues. Well, those days are over."

What she said: This time around, Clinton is making her potential
history-making run for the White House a major theme of her candidacy. And
she spent a good chunk of her time Monday at the progressive New School
talking about how as president she'd implement specific federal policies to
make it easier for women to work, such as fair pay laws and expanding
access to child care and paid sick leave.

Why its different from Sanders: Sanders has advocated for similar policies,
including 12-week paid maternity leave, but he doesn't spent as much time
as Clinton talking about gender policy. And that makes some sense: Clinton
has the potential to make history, and Sanders is doing a lot better among
white liberal men, the polls show.

2. Wall Street deserves scrutiny, but it's not evil

Key quote: "I know firsthand the role that Wall Street can and should play
in our economy helping main street grow and prosper."

What she said: Clinton certainly tried to appeal to the left-wing of her
party by criticizing Wall Street as too focused on short-term, quarterly
profits instead of America's long-term economic health. She promised to
criminally prosecute Wall Street CEOS responsible for trading that led to
the 2008 financial crisis, and she called for policies to rein in such
trading, such as taxing risky high-frequency trading. But the former New
York senator refused to vilify Wall Street as the over-arching reason
Americans are hurting today.

Why it's different from Sanders: Sanders, by contrast, has made Wall Street
one of his top enemies. "I think these people are so greedy, they're so out
of touch with reality," he told CNBC's John Harwood in May. Sanders is
promising a "revolution" to redistribute -- and he does use that word --
wealth from the top 1 percent to the masses. A key part of his plan is to
break up big banks on Wall Street and raise taxes on the rich.

3. Progressiveness is good, but blind ideology is bad

Key quote: "Let's get back to making decisions that rely on evidence more
than ideology."

What she said: Clinton ended her speech with what sounded almost like a
plea to stop campaigning on purely partisan politics, which she blamed for
creating Washington gridlock. Of course, she pitched herself as the
candidate to do just that. "I want to have principled and pragmatic and
progressive policies that really move us forward together," she said.

Why it's different from Sanders: While certainly criticizing Republicans
here too, this part of her speech could almost be read as a direct shot at
Sanders. His call to break up big banks and significantly raise the income
tax rate is seen by establishment Democrats as just not politically viable.
And on Sunday, Sanders seemed to make the case that Democrats shouldn't
work with Republicans.

4. Everything she left out of the speech

Sanders-supporting liberals were closely watching Clinton on Monday to see
if she'd stake out even more liberal positions on trade and minimum wage
and welfare.

But Clinton probably left those folks wanting. She did not talk about
expanding Social Security, she did not call for raising the national
minimum wage to $15 an hour, and she did not explicitly disapprove of
President Obama's trade deals with Pacific Rim nations and Europe.

So while she is pivoting to the left more than any other modern Democratic
presidential candidate, what Sanders said Sunday on CBS's "Face The Nation"
still holds true about the two candidates:

"There are very significant differences of opinion that we have."

*Hillary Clinton signals how she’ll attack Republicans on the economy
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-signals-how-shell-attack-republicans-on-the-economy/>
// WaPo // Paul Waldman – July 13, 2015 *

One of the central challenges Hillary Clinton faces as a presidential
candidate is how to deal with Barack Obama, a president with a mixed record
and middling popularity ratings (not to mention one who used to be her
boss). She isn’t going to criticize him too directly, but she also needs to
provide a full picture of how her presidency would be different from his.

In the economic speech she made today, Clinton showed how she’s going to
manage this on what will almost certainly be the most important issue of
the 2016 campaign. And in (for her) a happy coincidence, the ground where
she can draw those distinctions also provides some of the best
opportunities to criticize the Republicans running for president.

The most thematically important section of Clinton’s speech was this:

We’re not going to find all the answers we need today in the playbooks of
the past. We can’t go back to the old policies that failed us before, nor
can we just replay the successes. Today is not 1993. It’s not 2009. So we
need solutions for the big challenges we face now.

You can call this “distancing herself” from Obama, as many people surely
will, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Here’s the story as
Clinton will tell it: Barack Obama came into office in the midst of the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and so he had to
concentrate on pulling the country out of that disaster. Which he did — the
economy has produced 12 million jobs since it hit bottom at the end of
2009. But now that the fire has been put out, it’s time to address the
challenges of a changing workplace and a transformed economy. In other
words, it’s not 2009.

In telling that story, Clinton has an easy answer whenever someone asks
whether she’s implicitly criticizing Obama for one thing or another: times
are different now. But more fundamental is the contrast she can draw with
Republicans. The biggest advantage Clinton may have in this debate is that
as a Democrat, she believes that government can take an active role in
shaping the economy for people’s benefit. That means she can address a wide
range of economic and workplace challenges and offer new ideas for how they
might be confronted, whether it’s paid sick leave or Wall Street regulation
or early childhood education.

You can argue that these ideas are good or bad, but she’ll have many more
of them than Republicans will. Because Republicans think government’s role
should be far more limited, they have much less to offer on those specific
questions. They’d rather not have a debate on things like sick leave,
because their default answer — just get out of the way and let the market
work its magic — sounds like they don’t want to fix the problem.

In the speech, Clinton found ways to criticize all three top-tier
Republican candidates. She seized on Jeb Bush’s recent remark that “People
need to work longer hours” as though he had made it just to do her a favor.
“Well, he must not have met very many American workers,” she said. “Let him
tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the teacher who is
in that classroom, or the trucker who drives all night. Let him tell that
to the fast-food workers marching in the streets for better pay. They don’t
need a lecture. They need a raise.”

I’ve argued that Jeb should be forgiven for this “gaffe,” but there’s no
doubt it fits in perfectly with the argument Clinton and other Democrats
are making: that they’re the ones who want to raise wages and make the
workplace more fair, while Republicans just want you to work harder for the
benefit of your boss. And while she was at it, Clinton went after Marco
Rubio’s tax plan, saying it “would cut taxes for households making around
$3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times
the earnings of a typical family. Well, that is a sure budget busting
giveaway to the super wealthy, and that’s the kind of bad economics you are
likely to hear from any of the candidates on the other side.” She also went
after Scott Walker in an emphatically pro-union section of the speech:

Alongside tax reform, it’s time to stand up to efforts across our country
to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven again and again
to drive up wages. Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their
names stomping on workers’ rights, and practically all the Republican
candidates hope to do the same as president. I will fight back against
these mean-spirited, misguided attacks. Evidence shows that the decline of
unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among
men, so if we want to get serious about raising incomes, we have to get
serious about supporting union workers.

There was plenty more — it was almost a State of the Union address in its
multiplicity of proposals, on everything from immigration reform to equal
pay for women to corporate profit-sharing to preschool. Back in 2008,
Clinton was sometimes criticized for delivering too much policy wonkery
while Barack Obama was delivering inspiring rhetoric. That doesn’t seem to
have changed — however else her 2016 campaign will be different, Clinton
will have no shortage of proposals related to the economy and the workplace.

Republicans will of course say that every last one is wrongheaded and
dangerous. But if they don’t have much to offer in response, that will
probably be just fine with her.

*Why Hillary Clinton made gender such a big deal in her major economic
speech
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/why-hillary-clinton-made-gender-such-a-big-deal-in-her-major-economic-speech/>
// WaPo // Danielle Paquette – July 13, 2015 *

Last year, as Hillary Clinton awaited the birth of her first granddaughter,
Charlotte, a nurse at New York City’s Lenox Hill Hospital thanked her for
promoting paid family leave.

“She sees first-hand what it means for herself and her colleagues and the
working parents she takes care of,” Clinton said, recalling the encounter
Monday in her first major economic speech this election cycle.

The memory illustrated what has thus far been a central message of
Clinton’s campaign: So-called “women’s issues” are economic issues, and
they intensify for millions of workers after those life-shaking trips to
the maternity ward.

In her sprawling speech, which touched on Wall Street and Internet
competition and the sharing economy, Clinton dedicated more than 1,000
words to burdens disproportionately carried by women -- a rarity in the
context of policy addresses from front-running presidential candidates.

She called fair pay, flexible scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick
days “essential to our competitiveness and growth.”

She told the stories of a single mother balancing full-time work and
community college, highlighting the need for affordable childcare, and a
grandmother who watches children for a living but can barely afford to fill
her prescriptions, highlighting the weak financial rewards for providing it.

And she mentioned the disparity that makes all this even tougher for female
workers nationwide: American women, on average, make 78 cents for every
dollar earned by men. Women of color, Clinton added, make even less. The
number, compared to white men’s earnings, dwindles to 64 cents for black
women, the National Women’s Law Center reports, and 56 cents for Hispanic
women.

“Another key ingredient of strong growth that often goes overlooked and
undervalued: Breaking down barriers so more Americans can participate more
fully in the workforce, especially women,” she said. “We are in a global
competition and we can’t afford to leave talent on the sidelines.”

Over the last four decades, the number of female breadwinners in the U.S.
has more than tripled. This trend generated $3.5 trillion of economic
growth, Clinton said -- but progress is stalling.

Full-time employment increased from 28.6 percent of all women in 1979 to
43.6 percent in 2007 before declining to 40.7 percent in 2012, according to
the the Center for American Progress.

The reasons are complicated, and research suggests no one policy fix can
vanquish social deterrents like, say, the well-documented unconscious
biases that seep into hiring and promotion decisions.

An estimated 43 million American workers have no access to paid leave.
They’re mostly low-wage workers, already strained when recovering after the
birth of a child, for example, or tending to a sick kid. Top earners, on
the other hand, tend to receive the benefits through employers, according
to a recent survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The problem compounds for single mothers who lack the benefits. Some
economists argue closing the wage gap would lift nearly half out of
poverty, according to a report from the Institute for Women’s Policy
Research.

“All this lost money adds up,” Clinton said Monday, “and for some women,
it’s thousands of dollars every year.”

Advocates say Clinton’s policy prescriptions for gender equality could be a
good start for leveling the professional playing field, so long as
government mandates don’t make matters worse for working women.

The results are mixed when it comes to paid leave, in particular. The three
states that so far offer some form of it -- California, New Jersey and
Rhode Island -- are already recording increased wages for mothers of young
children.

But evidence from abroad warns about possible, unintended consequences of
sweeping reforms. After Chile, for example, required large employers to
cover daycare costs, women, whether or not they had children, started
seeing lower starting pay.

*The hard questions that Hillary’s speech on the economy left unanswered
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/13/the-questions-that-hillarys-speech-on-the-economy-left-unanswered/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s speech on the economy today sent an important message:
That the ambitiousness of her agenda will be commensurate with the scale of
the economic challenges the country faces.

The speech’s big theme wasn’t just that economic growth and the
distribution of the fruits of that growth have come decoupled from one
another. It was also that it is within our power to change this through a
robust policy response — just as previous generations have “built” (her
deliberate word choice) great economies and strong middle classes.

However, there are still plenty of specifics that need to be filled in —
something her campaign has promised she will do in a series of speeches
this summer.

So here are some of the questions that were left unanswered. From the
speech:

“You know advances in technology and expanding global trade have created
whole new areas of commercial activity and opened new markets for our
exports, but too often they’re also polarizing our economy — benefiting
high-skilled workers but displacing or downgrading blue collar jobs and
other mid-level jobs that used to provide solid incomes for millions of
Americans….we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements. We should
support them if they create jobs, raise wages, and advance our national
security. And we should be prepared to walk away if they don’t.“

Where will Clinton come down on the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Today’s
rhetoric is consistent with her  previous claim that any trade deal must
“put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create
more good jobs at home.” But this, of course, leaves room for her to decide
either that the TPP does that or that it doesn’t, and when we see the
specifics of a deal, she’ll have to take a stand. That won’t be easy.

“Today’s marketplace focuses too much on the short term – like
second-to-second financial trading and quarterly earnings reports – and too
little on long-term investments.”

Will Clinton support a financial transactions tax to discourage
“short-termism,” as Bernie Sanders has called for? Or (and these things
aren’t mutually exclusive) will she support reforms to the tax code’s
treatment of executive compensation that the Center for American Progress
has suggested in order to de-incentivize short-termism?

“We’ll help families look forward to retirement by defending and enhancing
Social Security and making it easier to save for the future.”

Will Clinton come out for expanding Social Security, as Sanders and other
progressive Democrats have? The choice of the word “enhancing” seemed
deliberately vague.

“Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too
risky. And the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the
headlines. Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called
“shadow banking” system — including hedge funds, high frequency traders,
non-bank finance companies — so many new kinds of entities which receive
little oversight at all…Over the course of this campaign, I will offer
plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock
markets work for everyday investors, not just high frequency traders and
those with the best — or fastest — connections.”

Will Clinton call for re-instating Glass-Steagall, a key goal of the
Elizabeth Warren wing of the party? One outside Clinton adviser says she
won’t. When Clinton says she’ll “go beyond Dodd Frank,” what will that look
like?

Clinton, as expected, came out for incentivizing corporate “profit
sharing,” but said the specifics on how to accomplish that would have to
wait until a speech in New Hampshire later this week.

Much of Clinton’s speech was very programmatic. She came out for paid
family and sick leave, universal early education, and more investments in
job training, all under the umbrella of boosting mobility and opportunity.
She backed comprehensive immigration reform, higher taxes on capital gains,
and more in infrastructure spending.

But still more specifics will be forthcoming. The general ambition of her
speech demands them. Indeed, it seemed designed, if anything, to raise
expectations along these lines.

*Hillary Clinton Economic Plan Emphasizes Growth and Increasing Wages
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-economic-plan-emphasizes-growth-and-increasing-wages-1436811034?utm_content=buffer82947&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, laying out her economic
vision, said Monday that government must do more to rein in excessive
risk-taking on Wall Street, push financial firms to focus on long-term
growth over short-term gains and assure stock markets “work for everyday
investors, not just high-frequency traders.”

“The truth is the current rules for our economy do reward some work, like
financial trading … much more than other work, like actually building and
selling things,” she said.

Her wide-ranging remarks included a series of hits on leading Republican
presidential candidates. She said Sen. Marco Rubio’s tax plan would reward
the rich and argued that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made his name
“stomping on workers’ rights.” Mrs. Clinton also charged former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush with wanting hardworking Americans to work even harder.

Overall, she said she is focused on growing the economy and increasing
wages for all Americans, while Republican policies will aid only the
wealthy.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, Allie Brandenburger, replied that Mrs. Clinton
is backing antiquated policies and that Mr. Bush would push for 4% economic
growth. “Hillary Clinton is proposing the same failed policies we have seen
in the Obama economy, where the typical American household’s income has
declined and it’s harder for businesses to hire and the middle class to
achieve rising incomes,” she said.

In her remarks, Mrs. Clinton gave few policy details, saying they will come
later. She declined to respond to a protester who interrupted her remarks
near the end of the speech demanding to know if she will reinstate
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law separating plain-vanilla banking
activities from riskier investment-banking bets that was repealed when her
husband, Bill Clinton, was president.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton in the audience at the New School in Manhattan
drowned out the protester with applause and he was escorted from the
auditorium.

Mrs. Clinton isn’t expected to back such a sweeping regulatory policy, but
she said that as president she would both defend and expand the Dodd-Frank
financial-sector regulations put into place under President Barack Obama.

“Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too
risky,” she said. She said the problems aren’t limited to big banks but
include those in the “shadow banking system” such as hedge funds,
high-frequency traders and nonbank finance companies.

She also said that too often companies guilty of wrongdoing are punished
but the people responsible get away with limited or no consequences. “We
will ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee,” she said.
“And we will prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud
or criminal wrongdoing.”

She promised a plan for the capital-gain tax that will “reward longer-term
investments that create jobs, more than just quick trades.” She didn’t
offer details.

As a whole, she said her economic plan would work to increase economic
growth, as Republicans are pushing, and tackle inequality, as many in the
Democratic Party are demanding.

To encourage growth, she said she would back an infrastructure bank to fund
investments in airports, roads and bridges; an immigration overhaul to
bring more people into the economic system; and a corporate-tax plan to
close loopholes that she said reward companies for sending jobs and profits
overseas. She also mentioned support for faster broadband networks,
investments in clean energy and more money for medical research. She said
she would help women participate in the workforce by backing child-care
programs and paid leave.

To tackle inequality, she said she backs increasing the minimum wage, the
Obama rules raising the threshold of pay that mandates overtime rates,
reining in health-care costs, support for unions, reviving a “new markets”
tax cut, and taxing so-called carried interest earned by investors as
regular income. She also proposed new tax breaks to encourage corporate
profit-sharing with employees, an idea she said she will expand on this
Thursday.

With her heavy focus on growth, the speech offered an implicit critique of
her Democratic rivals, but she ignored them in her remarks on Monday.
Instead, she offered a string of attacks on Republican presidential
contenders, and what she said was a GOP focus on aid for those at the top.

She pointed to Mr. Bush’s comment last week that growing the economy will
mean people have to “work longer hours,” though he made clear he meant
people who have part-time work must be able to find full-time employment.

“Now, you may have heard Gov. Bush say Americans just need to work longer
hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers,” she said.
Pointing to a variety of hardworking people, she said, “They do not need a
lecture. They need a raise.”

She also noted Mr. Walker’s campaign to strip collective-bargaining rights
from public-sector unions and said practically all Republican candidates
want to do the same as president. She said unions have driven wages up and
need to be supported. “I will fight back against these mean-spirited,
misguided attacks,” she said.

Mr. Walker, who officially launched his campaign on Monday, defended his
record. “We took power out of the hands of the big government special
interests and put it firmly into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers,”
he said.

Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Rubio’s plan would amount to a tax giveaway for the
very rich. Mr. Rubio’s spokesman, Alex Conant, replied: “Secretary Clinton
wants to take us back to yesterday, but we cannot raise taxes like the
1990s or increase spending like the 2000s. Marco is proposing a 21st
century tax plan that would benefit all Americans, especially middle-class
families.”

*Hillary Clinton to Propose Tax Breaks for Firms Sharing Profits With
Employees
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-to-propose-tax-breaks-for-firms-sharing-profits-with-employees/>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – July 13, 2015*

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will propose tax breaks
for companies that create programs to share profits with their employees,
part of an economic speech Monday where she will call for new action to
raise middle-class wages.

Her overall theme is that raising incomes for all Americans is the nation’s
defining economic challenge.

“We need new ideas …  One that I believe in and will fight for is profit
sharing,” she plans to say Monday in her speech at the New School in New
York City, according to a short excerpt provided by a campaign official.
“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce.”

She plans to offer details on this idea at an event Thursday in New
Hampshire.

The idea of profit-sharing is discussed at length in a report issued
earlier this year by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank
with deep ties to the Clinton campaign. The report said that profit sharing
programs is aimed at making sure that corporate profits benefit a broad
base of workers and not just top executives, on the basis of overall
performance. Benefits, the report said, include higher pay, greater
employee participation in decision-making, increased productivity and
higher profits.

The report suggested tax incentives to encourage these arrangements, such
as allowing companies to deduct certain incentive-based pay as a business
cost.

*Clinton to Bush: American workers need a raise
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/847ce366a5694b82a0edce87fb59c090/clinton-outline-economic-priorities-new-york>
// AP // Ken Thomas and Jill Colvin – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton accused former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush of lacking an
understanding of the needs of American workers on Monday, using an
agenda-setting economic speech to cast Republican prescriptions for the
economy as relics of the past that would do little to boost wages for the
middle-class.

Outlining the tenets of her economic agenda, Clinton seized upon the recent
comments from Bush, who said last week in New Hampshire that "people need
to work longer hours." She said that Bush "must not have met many American
workers," and said he wouldn't hear that sentiment from teachers or nurses
or truck drivers. "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise," she said.

The Democratic presidential front-runner outlined the themes of her
economic agenda in a speech at The New School in New York City, where she
called raising incomes for hard-working Americans the defining economic
challenge facing the nation. The speech offered tough medicine for Wall
Street traders just a few blocks away and included swipes at other leading
Republican presidential candidates, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who was launching his campaign on Monday.

She specifically criticized a tax proposal put forward by Rubio, saying it
would significantly cut taxes for households earning $3 million a year.
"That's a sure budget-busting giveaway to the super-wealthy," Clinton said.
She also ripped into Walker, saying he was an example of a GOP governor who
had "made their names stomping on workers' rights."

During a stop in New Hampshire last week, Bush had been discussing the high
number of part-time workers listed among the roster of employed Americans,
and the need for people to find more full-time employment. Democrats have
seized upon the comments, hoping it will undermine the ability of the
brother and son of U.S. presidents to connect with middle-class workers.

Allie Brandenburger, a Bush spokeswoman, said in response that Clinton was
"proposing the same failed policies we have seen in the Obama economy,
where the typical American household's income has declined and it's harder
for businesses to hire and the middle class to achieve rising incomes."

Republicans note that under Obama, the workplace participation rate has
declined to their lowest levels since 1977 and the labor force includes
millions of people working in part-time jobs who would prefer working
full-time.

In a sign of his stature in the GOP field, Bush received the brunt of
Clinton's criticism. At one point, Clinton said the nation's economy should
not be measured by "some arbitrary growth targets untethered to people's
lives and livelihoods." That was a veiled reference to Bush, who has said
he would set a goal of 4 percent economic growth, including 19 million
jobs, if elected president, and would seek to harness innovation and
technology.

Clinton, meanwhile, made no mention of her chief Democratic rival, Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has wooed Democrats by making economic inequality
the central plank of his insurgent campaign. But her message appeared aimed
at liberals who have expressed anxiety about the uneven recovery of the
economy since the Great Recession.

Clinton pointed to the economic progress during her husband's two terms in
the 1990s and more recently under President Barack Obama. But she said that
globalization and technological changes require the next president to take
steps to help middle-class Americans participate in economic prosperity.

"Today is not 1993. It's not 2009. So we need solutions for the big
challenges we face now," Clinton said.

She pointed to a laundry list of Democratic-leaning policy ideas, including
more public investment in infrastructure projects like the construction of
roads and bridges, advancing renewable energy and tax cuts for small
business owners. Clinton also expressed support for an increase in the
federal minimum wage, an overhaul to the tax code, and policies proposals
related to child care, paid leave and paid sick days.

But in framing her economic vision, Clinton attempted to meet the demands
of liberals within her own party who question her willingness to regulate
Wall Street. Some of those Democrats have rallied behind Sanders and many
progressives note that Clinton has received backing from the financial
sector in past races and received lucrative speaking fees to address Wall
Street conferences.

Clinton urged corporate leaders to "embrace their responsibilities" to
workers, threatening tougher action against those who behave badly.

She vowed to expand the Dodd-Frank law passed by Congress in 2010, which
tightened regulation of financial institutions. Clinton said the rules were
"under assault" by Republicans — and advocated increased government
oversight not only of the country's' biggest banks but of hedge funds,
high-frequency traders, and other powerful financial players.

She leveled a subtle swipe against the Obama administration, which took no
action against the individual financial titans who pursued risky fiscal
practices that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Clinton promised
criminal prosecutions of bad bankers.

She said financial figures too often "get off with limited consequences or
none at all, even when they have already pocked the gains."

"This is wrong and on my watch it will change," she said. Clinton said she
would offer plans to "rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and make sure
stock markets work for everyday investors."

Clinton's economic framework will be followed by a series of speeches this
summer to outline a number of economic proposals, including wage growth,
college affordability, corporate accountability and paid leave. She plans
to discuss the need for corporate profit-sharing during a stop in New
Hampshire on Thursday.

Clinton's high-profile economic speech coincided with a courting of labor
groups and Hispanic officials, who also are being wooed by Sanders and
former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Clinton received the endorsement of
the American Federation of Teachers union on Saturday and both Clinton and
Sanders were holding private meetings with labor leaders later in the week.

The three Democratic contenders were addressing the National Council of La
Raza conference in Kansas City later Monday, appealing to members of the
nation's largest Latino advocacy organization.

*Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for Promoting Inequality
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-blames-republicans-for-promoting-inequality/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday blamed Republicans for “35 years” of
policies that have exacerbated income inequality by giving “more wealth to
those at the top” through tax cuts and corporate loopholes.

“Twice now in the past 20 years a Democratic president has had to come in
and clean up the mess,” Mrs. Clinton said in New York, as she called for
tax relief for middle-class families, an increase in collective bargaining
and other incentives to raise middle-class wages.

“I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy — you can’t have
one without the other,” she said.

In a speech intended to lay the groundwork for the economic message she
will carry throughout her 2016 campaign, Mrs. Clinton singled out by name
three of her potential Republican rivals: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin,
former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Mrs. Clinton alluded to comments Mr. Bush made last week about Americans
needing to work longer hours.

“Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the
teacher who is in that classroom or the trucker who drives all night,” she
said. “They don’t need a lecture, they need a raise.”

Mr. Bush later clarified that he was referring to the 6.5 million Americans
“stuck in part-time work” who haven’t been able to find a full-time job. A
spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Rubio’s economic plan a “sure budget-busting
giveaway to the super wealthy” and said Mr. Walker had embraced
“meanspirited, misguided attacks” on worker’s rights in clashing with
unions in Wisconsin. Mr. Walker later responded with a statement saying,
“Hillary Clinton thinks you grow the economy in Washington. I think the
American people grow the economy in cities, towns, and villages across the
U.S.”

And Republican officials warned that Mrs. Clinton’s approach will cost the
taxpayer.

“It’s pretty clear: she will have to raise taxes on American families,”
Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said of
Mrs. Clinton’s proposals. “There’s no way around it.”

The singling out of Republican candidates was sprinkled into a wide-ranging
and at times dense policy speech that presented the goal posts of the
economic agenda Mrs. Clinton would advance in her administration.

The policies, intended to “drive strong and steady income growth that lifts
up families,” ranged from relatively new ideas, like incentives for
corporations to increase profit sharing, and populist ones, like
criminalizing misconduct in the financial industry.

Mrs. Clinton included an extended plea to empower labor unions in
collective bargaining, saying that the “decline of unions may be
responsible for a third of the inequality among men.”

She also called on eliminating the loophole that allows for lower taxation
of carried interest (profits that a private equity adviser makes from
investing in companies), reining “in excessive risks on Wall Street,” and
giving regulators greater power to oversee big banks and the so-called
“shadow banking” industry of hedge funds and private equity firms.

“I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that ‘too big to
fail’ is still too big a problem,” she said.

The speech was the result of months of conversations with policy advisers
that long predated the official announcement of her candidacy in April. And
her remarks were a work-in-progress until the minute she delivered them,
according to multiple advisers who helped craft the address.

Earlier versions of the speech included criticism of only Mr. Bush and Gov.
Chris Christie of New Jersey, and did not go as far as the final draft in
plans to criminalize bad players in the financial sector, according to
these advisers, who could only discuss private discussions without
attribution.

Among the many advisers who weighed in was Gary Gensler, the campaign’s
chief financial officer and a former Wall Street regulator known for his
aggressive streak, who helped persuade Mrs. Clinton’s to go further in her
remarks on financial industry regulation.

“Those rules have been under assault by Republicans in Congress and those
running for president,” Mrs. Clinton said.

The remarks are intended to appease the liberal base of the Democratic
Party, as one of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, surges in the polls with his socialist message.

At one point a protester interrupted Mrs. Clinton in the auditorium of the
New School, yelling a question about whether she would reinstate the
Glass-Steagall Act. President Bill Clinton signed legislation that repealed
parts of Glass-Steagall in 1999, leading to the commingling of commercial
and investment banking, a move widely criticized by some liberals.

But those regulations seem increasingly antiquated in a financial industry
defined by the emergence of a “shadow banking” sector including hedge funds
and high-frequency traders that have thrived in the wake of the 2008
financial crisis.

“The problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines,”
Mrs. Clinton said. “Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the
so-called shadow banking system.”

Another economic adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel
laureate in economics who has written extensively about inequality, said
“the speech showed a clear understanding that our economy is not working
for most Americans” and that “we need to fundamentally rewrite the rules.”

*Hillary Clinton Speech Is Not Expected to Dwell on Wall Street
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-speech-is-not-expected-to-dwell-on-wall-street/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – July 13, 2015 *

In a speech in Lower Manhattan during the 2008 Democratic primaries,
Hillary Rodham Clinton assailed Wall Street for its role in a subprime
mortgage crisis that was months away from becoming the worst financial
meltdown since the Great Depression.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton will again choose the area for a major economic
address. But this time, speaking at the New School, she will only briefly
touch on Wall Street, regulation and the financial industry.

Mrs. Clinton is expected to focus on the economic problem she believes is
most urgent today: wages for low- and middle-class wage earners that have
remained virtually stagnant for 15 years even as the overall economy has
grown.

Economists call it “the great wage slowdown” of the 21st century, and Mrs.
Clinton, who expressed foresight in her proposals for regulating
derivatives and subprime mortgages months before the financial crisis hit,
believes the wage slowdown and the income inequality it has caused is the
fundamental economic challenge facing the country, according to aides who
provided a preview of her remarks.

The speech comes at a critical time for Mrs. Clinton, when one of her
Democratic opponents in the 2016 race, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont,
has surged in the polls and drawn big crowds with his populist message.

Her speech won’t be in the same populist vein, aides said.

Rather, she will lean heavily on proposals like paid family leave,
incentives for corporations to expand profit sharing to employees, and an
increase in the minimum wage. Mrs. Clinton will also come down hard on
corporations (including Wall Street firms) that she will argue are too
focused on quarterly returns to shareholders rather than on long-term
investment in employees. She will call on the wealthiest Americans to pay
more in taxes to help the country bridge the growing disparity between the
top 1 percent of earners and a vast majority of Americans.

The speech will be a blueprint for the policies she plans to talk about
over the course of the campaign. But liberals looking for Mrs. Clinton to
repeat her earlier economic speech, casting blame on the financial industry
and providing detailed policies that would affect the big banks, may be
disappointed.

As one Clinton aide cautioned: “This is not her Wall Street speech.”

*Hillary Clinton, Unapologetic Grandma
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-unapologetic-grandma/>
// NYT // Anna North – July 13, 2015 *

The question surfaced as soon as Chelsea Clinton announced her pregnancy:
Would becoming a grandmother dim Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions?

Her speech on Monday offered a pointed answer.

“Last year, while I was at the hospital here in Manhattan waiting for
little Charlotte to make her grand entrance,” she said, “one of the nurses
said, ‘Thank you for fighting for paid leave.’” That anecdote, part of a
larger promise to increase women’s participation in the labor force by
improving leave for parents and caregivers, was only Mrs. Clinton’s first
mention of her granddaughter.

She brought her up again in the context of early childhood development: “80
percent of your brain is physically formed by age of three. That’s why
families like mine read, talk, and sing endlessly to our granddaughter.”

And again to highlight the need for long-term change in Washington: “Maybe
it’s the grandmother in me, but I believe that part of public service is
planting trees under whose shade you’ll never sit.”

She even let Charlotte close the show, leaving the audience “with one more
thought”: “I want every child, every child in our country, not just the
granddaughter of a former President or a former secretary of state, but
every child to have the chance to live up to his or her God-given
potential.”

Not only will Mrs. Clinton not be bowing out of the presidential race to
care for her grandchild, she’s made her grandmother status central to her
message — one that, if Monday’s speech is any guide, will present equal pay
and paid leave as issues of crucial importance to the whole economy, not
just to women.

Some of the focus on her grandchild may be calculated to make Mrs. Clinton
seem warmer and more relatable (the standard of relatability for her has
long been higher than it is for male politicians).

But given the speculation that surrounded and even preceded Charlotte’s
birth, and the lack of respect generally afforded older women in America,
asserting oneself as both grandmother and candidate still feels
groundbreaking.

As her campaign moves forward, Mrs. Clinton is sure to receive criticism
based on or compounded by her gender — on Monday, she looked prepared to
address it head-on.

*Clinton to lay out economic vision in New York speech, will point to
husband’s 2 terms
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/clinton-to-lay-out-economic-vision-in-new-york-speech-will-point-to-husbands-2-terms/article25478459/>
// AP // Ken Thomas – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is laying out
her most concrete vision for the U.S. economy on Monday in a pitch to
Democrats who are being wooed by her chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and
a larger electorate assessing the 2016 presidential field.

Clinton will emphasize the need for policies to increase real income of
everyday Americans. Clinton is also expected to use the speech to portray a
large field of Republicans as beholden to tax cuts and quick fixes that
will fail to jumpstart wages.

Clinton will encourage companies to offer profit-sharing with their
employees, and will point to potential changes in the tax code to help
workers benefit, her campaign said Monday.

Aides said she would outline plans for more public investment in
infrastructure projects like the construction of roads and bridges,
advancing renewable energy and tax cuts for small business owners. Clinton
is also expected to support an increase in the federal minimum wage.

Clinton’s economic speech coincides with a courting of labour groups and
Hispanic officials by Clinton, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley. Clinton received the endorsement of the American Federation of
Teachers union on Saturday.

Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist who has risen in recent
Democratic polls, said in an interview with CBS on Sunday that he planned
to address poverty in the coming weeks and reach out to voters in
conservative states in the South.

The three Democratic contenders were addressing the National Council of La
Raza conference later Monday, appealing to members of the nation’s largest
Latino advocacy organization.

In her New York address, Clinton will point to the economic progress during
her husband’s two terms in the 1990s and more recently under President
Barack Obama. But she will note that globalization and technological
changes require the next president to take steps to help middle-class
Americans participate in economic prosperity.

Clinton will also attempt to meet the demands of liberals within her own
party who are wary of her willingness to regulate Wall Street. Some have
rallied behind Sanders, who has made economic inequality the central focus
of his campaign.

Republicans said Clinton was simply offering a prescription for a bigger
government role in the economy.

Clinton has sought to undermine the entire Republican field, including
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, as supporters of “top-down” economic policies and
large tax breaks for the wealthy.

*Clinton goes heavy on economic politics, light on policy
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028.html?ml=tl_8>
// Politico // Annie Karni and Glenn Thrush – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton delivered her first major economic speech of the 2016 race
on Monday — an attempt to address the threat posed by Bernie Sanders’
populist crusade without being pinned to a set of liberal proposals that
will hurt her in a general election.

The 45-minute speech at Manhattan’s New School — among the most liberal
schools in the country — was billed as a major policy address, but it was
an unmistakably political broadside that hit on the major points of
Clinton’s announcement speech and didn’t match Sanders’ own specificity on
key issues like hiking tax rates for the rich or opposing the Obama
administration’s Pacific trade deal negotiations.

Instead, she laid out an economic agenda for the country focused on
increasing wages for the middle class, while drawing specific contrasts
with the top contenders in the Republican field — calling out former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio by name. She made no mention of Sanders.

And she took an indirect swipe at her ally President Barack Obama, saying
she would explore new ways to hold individuals accountable for shenanigans
on Wall Street that lead to economic crises — a clear reference to the
dearth of criminal prosecutions of financial-sector executives under
Obama’s longtime attorney general Eric Holder.

Clinton said she would not hesitate to prosecute individuals in the finance
sector who commit fraud, while also instituting incentives for companies to
share profits with their workers, and creating an economy that works for
“the struggling, the striving, and the successful.”

Clinton said that raising incomes for Americans to afford a middle-class
life was the “defining economic challenge of our time. … The evidence is
in,” she said later in the speech. “Inequality is a drag on our entire
economy. This is the problem we need to tackle.”

In laying out proposals to encourage both “growth and fairness” in the
economy — encouraging small business growth and setting up an
infrastructure bank, while also talking about increasing the minimum wage
and profit-sharing — Clinton’s speech appeared to be an attempt to unite
the centrist and populist economic wings of her own party.

But she avoided some of the most controversial populist ideas, such as
increasing the federal minimum wage to $15, significantly raising corporate
tax rates or expanding Social Security for all.

She reiterated her support for the Warren Buffett rule, “to make sure
millionaires don’t pay lower rates than their secretaries.” She said she
supports closing the carried interest loophole, which allows wealthy
financiers to pay a lower tax rate.

“While institutions have paid large fines, too often it seems that the
human beings responsible get off with limited consequences, or none at all,
even when they have pocketed the gains,” she said about Wall Street
prosecutions. “This is wrong. On my watch, this will change.” She said she
would rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and make sure the stock market
works for “everyday investors,” not just high-frequency traders.

She said the country needs to go beyond Dodd-Frank regulations of major
financial institutions and warned that “serious risks are emerging from
institutions in the so-called shadow banking system,” including hedge
funds, high-frequency traders and nonbank financial companies.

In terms of profit-sharing, she said: “I’m not talking about charity, I’m
talking about clear-eyed capitalism. Many companies have prospered by
improving wages and training their workers.”

On trade, Clinton did not get more specific than she has in the past,
saying “we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements.”

Creating a contrast with the Republican field, Clinton criticized Bush for
his comment that Americans need to work longer hours (Bush later clarified
he was talking about the amount of part-time workers seeking full-time
work). “Well, he must not have met very many American workers,” she said.
“Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the
teacher in the classroom, or the trucker who drives all night. Let him tell
that to the fast-food workers marching in the streets for better pay … they
don’t need a lecture, they need a raise.”

She called out Rubio for cutting taxes for the super-wealthy, saying his
plan is to “cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by
almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a
typical family.” She said a priority is reforming the country’s Tax Code.

And she blasted Walker — who officially entered the 2016 contest Monday
morning — for “stomping on workers’ rights.” She said she will fight back
against “these mean-spirited and misguided attacks.”

Clinton’s speech was interrupted toward the end by a heckler who called out
to her, “Sen. Clinton, will you restore Glass-Steagall,” a reference to
legislation that creates distance between traditional banks and investments
banks that was repealed by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. The
heckler was escorted out of the auditorium by security, while the audience
stood and applauded to drown out the disruption.

*What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about job creation
<http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/what-hillary-clinton-gets-wrong-about-job-creation-000145>
// Politico // Danny Vinik – July 13, 2015 *

In her first major speech on the economy Monday, Hillary Clinton stood in
front of a crowd in Manhattan and declared her unwavering loyalty to small
business. “Small businesses create more than 60 percent of new American
jobs on net, so they have to be a top priority,” she said at the New
School. “I’ve said I want to be the small business president, and I mean
it.”

Clinton isn’t the first candidate to profess her commitment to small
businesses, and she won’t be the last. Backing small businesses has become
a rite of passage for presidential candidates of both parties.

Mitt Romney in 2012 said “We have to champion small business in this
country.” Then-candidate Barack Obama released a Small Business Rescue Plan
in 2008 “so that we're extending our hand to the shops and restaurants; the
start-ups and small firms that create jobs and make our economy grow.” In
his June announcement speech, Jeb Bush bragged that Florida was number one
in small business creation during his time as governor.

It’s great to have such wide agreement on an issue, but there’s just one
problem: Clinton, Romney, Obama and Bush are all wrong. Small businesses
certainly matter, but they’re not the drivers of job creation that everyone
thinks they are.

The 60 percent figure has become gospel in politics. But the best research
now suggests that jobs come from new businesses, not just small ones.
Though there’s overlap, those two groups of companies aren’t the same. And
the constant refrain of “small business” only serves to distract lawmakers
from the actual job creators and policies needed to promote them.

The Small Business Administration promotes the 60 percent figure, which
comes from a 2012 SBA report. But when economists John C. Haltiwanger,
Javier Miranda and Ron S. Jarmin used Census Bureau data to try to
determine where new jobs really come from, and controlled for firm age, the
relationship between firm size and job growth disappeared. They found that
new firms are the real job creators in the economy. In 2005, for instance,
startups created 3.5 million net new jobs—a million more than were created
in the entire private sector. In other words, non-startup businesses were
responsible that year for a 1 million job decline in employment.

It’s true that most new firms are also small. According to the SBA, “small
business” encompasses 99 percent of companies in America. But most of them
aren’t new, and aren’t adding jobs.

“Because new firms tend to be small, the finding of a systematic inverse
relationship between firm size and net growth rates in prior analyses is
entirely attributable to most new firms being classified in small size
classes,” the authors write.

If you care about new businesses, this might actually be a time to worry.
Entrepreneurship rates have been declining for years, and economists aren’t
quite sure why. But they do have a few ideas for how to create more
startups in America, such as passing immigration reform to bring in more
high-tech workers and reforming U.S. patent laws to protect small companies
from being dragged into court by patent trolls.

And some policies designed to help small businesses can actually hurt new
ones. For instance, many occupational licensing laws help protect small
businesses like hair salons and barber shops, but make it considerably more
expensive to start new firms.

Clinton’s speech wasn’t bad for new businesses: she promised to cut red
tape and offer easier access to capital for entrepreneurs.

But she’s unlikely to shift her rhetoric anytime soon. Americans like the
idea of their leaders fighting for mom-and-pop shops, and they like
thinking that those shops are what drives American job growth. Until that
changes, you can expect politicians across the political spectrum to keep
mentioning it.

“Chalk this up to the fact that all politicians must, by unspoken law, and
regardless of their economic validity, praise small business, a strong
dollar, and balanced budgets,” Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the
left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and former top
economist for Vice President Joe Biden, wrote in an email. Of Clinton,
whose campaign he has spoken with informally, he wrote: “The fact that she
hit only one of those three is actually pretty good!”

*Clinton speech react: ‘Is that it?’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economy-speech-reaction-120033.html?hp=t4_r>
// Politico // Ben White – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton gave a big economics speech here on Monday, and the snap
reaction among Wall Street investors, economists and ardent financial
reformers who thrill to the soak-the-rich rhetoric of Bernie Sanders was a
collective: “Meh. What’s next?”

Clinton laid out the soft contours of a “growth and fairness economy” in a
speech designed to appeal to struggling middle-class workers with promises
of higher pay and more generous federal policies.

But she left out many hard specifics on tougher tax policy toward the rich
and corporate America. And she offered limited pledges to crack down on big
Wall Street banks while hitting her strongest notes promising to toss rogue
bankers in prison while ripping recent worker-productivity comments from
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Despite those few moments, this was hardly Thomas Piketty invading the land
of Wall Street titans and flipping over tables piled high with gold. And
there were no radical new proposals aimed at reversing America’s long slide
into wage stagnation.

“She appears to have taken a page out of the Elizabeth Warren book on going
after bankers and brokers and fat cats and people who may have broken the
law,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment office at BMO Private bank. “I’m
sure a lot of polling went into that. But in terms of inequality and
profit-sharing and general economic redistribution, she was a lot longer on
problems than she was on solutions.”

And Clinton sounded some of her by now very familiar themes, invoking her
love of being a grandmother and arguing that middle-class wage stagnation
since the end of the Great Recession was exacerbating income inequality
while pledging that something must be done. But that something, according
to Clinton, mainly consists of boosting the minimum wage and increasing
overtime pay, something President Barack Obama has been pushing for some
time.

Clinton also reiterated her long-held belief that the lower “carried
interest” tax that some private equity and hedge fund managers pay on large
chunks of their hefty take-home pay should be boosted to the ordinary
income rate. But that was widely expected and not new. Wall Street mostly
expects it will have to give up that benefit.

Clinton did gently push into some new ground by urging corporate America to
share more of its record profits with average workers and not just top
management. But Clinton offered little in the way of direct prescriptions
for doing this, leaving that for future speeches.

“I will propose ways for companies to share more of their profits with
employees,” Clinton said. “Later, in New Hampshire, I’ll have more to say
about how we will do this.”

She also argued for tax relief for small businesses and broader corporate
tax reform along with comprehensive immigration reform. But she did not go
into specifics on any of these issues.

Other proposals also harkened back to Obama’s efforts, including an
economic infrastructure bank to pay for much-needed upgrades to the U.S.
transportation and communications systems. She again pressed for policies
to address the pay gap between men and women, another familiar theme from
the campaign trail, along with more early-childhood education.

Clinton perhaps hit her high point with a direct attack on recent comments
from former Bush, who said last week that Americans need to “work longer
hours” to increase economic growth. To significant applause, Clinton cited
hard-working nurses and other Americans and said, “They don’t need a
lecture. They need a raise.”

In a note that struck some as odd given the popularity of the services,
Clinton specifically criticized “gig economy” companies, a group that
includes upstarts such as Airbnb and Uber. These types of scrappy young
companies have often provided corporate homes for former Obama
administration officials. Former top Obama adviser David Plouffe is now a
senior executive at Uber.

Defenders of Uber and companies like it say they are fighting entrenched
and sluggish transportation incumbents such as cab companies. Getting rid
of this opposition and allowing upstart companies to thrive would be a
better path to faster growth than siding with their opponents, some
analysts say.

“I think a lot of people view the sharing economy as a prime example of
U.S. innovation and entrepreneurship,” said James Pethokoukis of the free
market American Enterprise Institute. “They are breaking up these monopoly
hotel chains and taxicab companies and allowing more people to provide not
just great services but to provide more income to workers.”

Pethokoukis gave Clinton stronger marks for taking on corporate
“short-termism” that focuses on quarterly earnings and stock buybacks
rather than long-term investment. It’s an issue popular with Wall Street
investors such as Larry Fink of Blackrock and tech investor Marc
Andreessen, among others. “Republicans should look to get on board that
issue as soon as possible,” Pethokoukis said.

Clinton also continued to straddle a middle ground on trade deals after
strongly pushing for a free-trade agreement with Asia during her tenure as
secretary of state. The halfway stance has enraged members of the Obama
administration struggling to get the Asia deal done while also failing to
excite ardent opponents of free trade deals on the left.

Many on the left strongly opposed to free trade and in favor of cracking
down harder on Wall Street have gravitated to Sanders and, to a much lesser
degree, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“Growth here at home and growth an ocean away are linked in a common global
economy,” Clinton said on Monday. “Trade has been a major driver of the
economy over recent decades, but it has also contributed to hollowing out
our manufacturing base,” she said. “We do need to set a high bar for trade
agreements, supporting them if they create jobs. … But we should be
prepared to walk away if they don’t.”

Clinton also found herself in a bit of a muddle as she praised the economy
under her husband, former President Bill Clinton. But she did not note that
Bill Clinton presided over the collapse of the Glass-Steagall wall between
investment and commercial banking and unleashed a massively speculative
market boom in technology stocks.

In perhaps her sharpest section, Clinton said that as a senator from New
York, she learned “firsthand” the positive role Wall Street can play in
growing the economy by helping innovators raise capital. But she also
slammed bankers who “piled risk upon risk” heading into the crisis and
cited her early calls to crack down on derivatives and subprime lending.

She pledged to both defend existing financial reform and go even further,
almost hinting at a need to break up the largest banks, something sure to
go down poorly with some of Clinton’s biggest supporters on Wall Street.
“We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank; too many of our major financial
institutions are still too complex. … I will offer plans to rein in
excessive risk taking on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for
everyday investors, not just high-speed traders.”

O’Malley last week issued specific proposals on this front. Clinton has yet
to do so.

Financial reformers gave her mixed grades. “It’s a good start, but after
all this listening, planning and thinking by the runaway leading candidate,
I expected more,” said Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, a pro-reform
group. “The American people deserve a concrete, specific, comprehensive
plan that really protects them from Wall Street recklessness and that she
as president can be held accountable for once in office.”

Another financial reformer said the anti-Wall Street crowd was waiting to
see whether Clinton will “put in place a team of advisers who have a
demonstrated history of supporting meaningful reform and tough enforcement,
or chooses instead to surround herself with the same crowd of revolving
door insiders.”

The real test for Clinton on Wall Street will come when and if she turns
this rhetoric into actual policy prescriptions. Big Wall Street titans
heavily funding Clinton’s campaign and other business interests fully
expect to take some heavy rhetorical hits as the Democratic front-runner
fights off the Sanders surge. But they do not expect Clinton to try and
fully reshape their industry.

Many conservatives breathed a sigh of relief after the speech, having
feared a fresh set of innovative proposals that might have required serious
responses. “I think it’s a horse race between what’s more tired, her or the
material,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the conservative American Enterprise
Institute. “There really isn’t anything new here. It’s really more of the
same, and I don’t understand how that would produce an outcome different
from the last six or seven years.”

*Hillary takes new shot at Jeb's 'longer hours' comment
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-2016-jeb-bush-longer-hours-120021.html#ixzz3fmoKY6zg>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton laid into Jeb Bush’s remark that Americans need to work
longer hours on Monday during her first economic policy speech at the New
School in New York City.

“Well, he must not have met very many American workers,” Clinton said to
applause and cheers. “Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet
all day or the teacher who is in that classroom, or the trucker who drives
all night. Let him tell that to the fast-food workers marching in the
streets for better pay. They don’t need a lecture. They need a raise.”

“The truth is, the current rules for our economy do reward some work, like
financial trading for example, much more than other work, like building and
selling things,” Clinton added.

Bush made the suggestion during an interview with New Hampshire’s Union
Leader last week, urging the need for people to work longer hours because
workforce participation is at all-time modern lows.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. speaks to local residents during a breakfast
meeting, Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2014, at the Drake Diner in Des Moines, Iowa.
Sanders, looking more like a longshot candidate for president, is visiting
Iowa for the first time since the midterm election. The self-styled
independent socialist would likely run in the Democrat caucuses as a
liberal voice in a field that could include establishment Democrat Hillary
Rodham

It’s not the first time Clinton’s campaign has taken a shot at that remark.
Her campaign tweeted a graph by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute
showing stagnating wages as productivity has risen over the last four
decades.

Clinton also took shots at Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker, who is set to formally announce his campaign later Monday.

Rubio’s tax-cutting plan would be a “sure budget-busting giveaway to the
super wealthy,” she said, “and that’s the kind of bad economics you are
likely to hear from any of the candidates on the other side.”

She blasted Republican governors like Walker who “have made their names
stomping on workers’ rights, and practically all the Republican candidates
hope to do the same as president.”

*Clinton bashes Wall Street, pledges U.S. income equality
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PN0FA20150713>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez and Jonathan Allen – July 13, 2015 *

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took swipes at Wall Street and
her Republican rivals on Monday, promising to impose tougher regulations on
banks and raise the wages of ordinary Americans if she wins the 2016 White
House race.

Under pressure from a campaign rival on the left, Clinton said she would
appoint strict overseers to ensure that financial institutions never again
indulge in the risky behavior that helped cause the 2008 banking crash.

In an address that her campaign promoted as a major economic policy speech,
the former secretary of state vowed that banks cannot be "too big to fail."

"As we all know in the years before the crash, financial firms piled risk
upon risk, and regulators in Washington either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep
up," she said at The New School, a liberal university in Manhattan's
Greenwich Village.

"I will appoint and empower regulators who understand

that too big to fail is still too big a problem," Clinton said.

She promised to go beyond the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that imposed stronger
regulations on the financial industry.

But Alan Blinder, an economist who advises Clinton's campaign, told Reuters
she had no plans to reinstate the

A former first lady and U.S. senator, Clinton is the clear favorite to win
the Democratic nomination for the November 2016 presidential election but
is facing a challenge from Bernie Sanders, a Vermont senator and
self-styled socialist who is drawing large crowds at campaign events.

Clinton put the fight for higher wages for everyday Americans at the heart
of her economic agenda, although her speech was short on specific policy
proposals.

She said the U.S. economy will only run at full steam when middle-class
wages rise steadily along with executive salaries and company profits.

"Corporate profits are at near-record highs and Americans are working as
hard as ever but paychecks have barely budged in real terms," Clinton said.

Stepping up attacks against Republican rivals for the White House, Clinton
took a dig at former Florida Governor Jeb Bush who said last week that
Americans should have the chance to work longer hours.

"They don’t need a lecture, they need a raise," she said. Clinton also took
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to task for his strong opposition to union
collective bargaining. Walker announced his candidacy for the Republican
nomination on Monday.

Clinton will unveil more specifics of her economic policy in a series of
speeches in coming weeks as liberal Democrats flirting with Sanders seek
more details of her plans on increasing the minimum wage, creating
universal preschool and investing in infrastructure.

Putting some meat on the bones of her economic policy could divert focus
from issues dragging on Clinton's popularity, including a controversy over
her use of a private email account while she was America's top diplomat.

"I think substance is her friend on the campaign because she has
credibility as a substantive person, with extensive experience. Thoughtful,
innovative proposals are going to help her," said Democratic strategist
Bill Carrick.

It remains unclear how Clinton's tough-sounding language might affect the
deep ties she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have with
Wall Street. Both have been handsomely paid for speeches by major finance
and investment institutions in recent years, including Goldman Sachs and
The Carlyle Group.

Hillary Clinton, who represented Wall Street as part of her constituency
when she was a U.S. senator from New York, has long looked to people in the
finance industry for large campaign donations.

*Hillary Clinton is about to lay out her economic vision
<http://www.businessinsider.com/r-clinton-to-propose-capital-gains-tax-reform-campaign-document-2015-7>
// Reuters – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton will propose policies
including "reforming capital gains taxation" in coming weeks to fight an
excessive focus on short-term profits in capital markets, according to a
campaign talking points document seen by Reuters.

Clinton will speak on Monday about her vision for the US economy, including
addressing income inequality and encouraging longer-term investment
horizons. The memo was sent out in advance of that speech.

"In the coming weeks, she will outline specific policies — for example, by
reforming capital gains taxation — that will seek to counter the effect of
this short-term focus," according to the memo seen by Reuters.

On Monday, Clinton will propose tax incentives to encourage companies to
share more profits with workers, according to a campaign aide.

Clinton will say workers need to benefit from the profits they are helping
to produce and will cite studies showing profit-sharing can increase
productivity.

"It's a win-win," she will say in her speech, according to the campaign
official. The speech is scheduled for 10 a.m. EDT.

*Clinton to propose tax incentives to encourage companies to share profits:
aide
<http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-propose-tax-incentives-encourage-companies-share-profits-100949398--finance.html>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 13, 2015 *

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton will pledge to "reform" capital
gains taxation in coming weeks as part of her plan to fight an excessive
focus on quick profits in capital markets, according to a campaign talking
points document seen by Reuters.

Clinton, the favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination for the
November 2016 election, will speak on Monday about her plan for the U.S.
economy, which includes addressing income inequality and encouraging
longer-term investment.

The campaign memo, intended to help supporters discuss her ideas with the
media and would-be donors, was sent out in advance of that speech.

"In the coming weeks, she will outline specific policies—for example, by
reforming capital gains taxation—that will seek to counter the effect of
this short-term focus," the memo, a copy of which was shared by a recipient
with Reuters, said.

Such a pledge would appear to be a shift from her position when she last
campaigned for the party's nomination in 2008.

In a primary debate that year, she stood by legislation signed by her
husband, Bill Clinton, in 1997 when he was president.

That law lowered the maximum taxation rate on capital gains, which are the
profits made on selling capital assets such as shares or real estate, from
28 percent to 20 percent. In 2003, the maximum rate was lowered further
still to 15 percent under President Geoorge W. Bush.

"I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all," she said
in the 2008 debate. "I would not raise it above what it was during the
Clinton administration."

In 2012, the top capital gains taxation rate was raised back up to 20
percent for the wealthiest earners. For a period in the 1970s, the maximum
taxation rate for long-term capital gains was almost 40 percent.

Clinton, who will say on Monday that the best way to increase the size of
the U.S. economy is to increase middle-class people's incomes according to
her campaign, hinted at her change of heart on capital gains at a campaign
event in April.

Capital gains were intended to be "a way to reward people who made risky
investments," she said at an event with voters in New Hampshire, "and now
it is just being churned."

*Hillary Clinton calls for greater U.S. income equality
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PN0FA20150713>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez & Jonathan Allen – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton put the fight for higher wages for
everyday Americans at the heart of her economic agenda on Monday, in the
first major policy speech of her White House bid.

Clinton said the U.S. economy will only run at full steam when middle-class
wages rise steadily along with executive salaries and company profits.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have
one without the other," she said at The New School university in
Manhattan's Greenwich Village, a bastion of liberal education.

With one eye on the growing support for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a
self-described socialist who is also seeking the Democratic Party
nomination, Clinton laid out a vision of economic equality.

"Corporate profits are at near-record highs and Americans are working as
hard as ever but paychecks have barely budged in real terms. Families today
are stretched in so many directions and so are their budgets," Clinton said.

The former secretary of state promised to push for a broader reform of the
U.S. corporate tax code.

Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the November
2016 presidential election but Sanders has drawn large crowds at campaign
events.

She will unveil more specifics of her economic policy in a series of
speeches in the coming weeks as Democrats seek more details of her plans on
increasing the minimum wage, creating universal preschool and investing in
infrastructure.

Putting some meat on the bones of her economic policy could divert the
focus away from issues that are dragging on Clinton's popularity, including
a controversy over her use of a private email account while she was
President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

*Hillary Clinton To Put Wages At Heart Of Economic Policy
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-speech_n_7783658.html>
// Reuters – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton will put the fight for higher wages
for "everyday Americans" at the heart of her economic agenda on Monday,
when she makes the first major policy speech in her White House bid.

Clinton will argue that ensuring middle-class wages rise steadily along
with executive salaries and company profits is the defining economic
challenge of our time, her campaign said.

With one eye on the growing support for socialist Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, Clinton will lay
out her economic vision in the address at The New School university in
Manhattan's Greenwich Village at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT).

She will unveil specifics in a series of speeches in the coming weeks as
Democrats seek more details of her plans on increasing the minimum wage,
creating universal preschool and investing in infrastructure.

Putting some meat on the bones of her economic policy could divert the
focus away from issues that are dragging on Clinton's popularity, like the
controversy over her use of a private email account while she was President
Barack Obama's secretary of state.

"I think substance is her friend on the campaign because she has
credibility as a substantive person, with extensive experience. Thoughtful,
innovative proposals are going to help her," said Democratic strategist
Bill Carrick.

Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the November
2016 presidential election but Sanders has drawn large crowds at campaign
events in Iowa.

Wall Street will be watching Clinton's speech closely for hints of whether
she will call for tougher financial regulation as her campaign develops.
Rivals Sanders and Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, have
urged a breakup of big banks but Clinton has not done so.

The former first lady will say that technology has created new business
opportunities but also threatens to kill middle-class jobs, benefits and
protections.

Clinton is likely to dismiss, at least indirectly, a pledge by leading
Republican candidate Jeb Bush who says he will virtually double the U.S.
economy's annual growth rate to 4 percent.

Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, a former Silicon Valley
chief executive, said Clinton would damage businesses and fail to close the
income gap.

"Every policy she is pursuing will make income inequality worse, not
better, crony capitalism even worse, not better. And meanwhile, we will
continue to crush the businesses that create jobs and middle-class
families," Fiorina told ABC's "This Week" television show on Sunday.

*Hillary Clinton Runs as Obama-Plus
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-13/hillary-clinton-promises-to-build-on-obama-legacy>
// Bloomberg // Francis Wilkinson – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's speech today on the economy was more of a table-setter
than a genuine policy repast. The outline was bold while the details were
mostly left for other days. But her words made one thing clear: The 2016
presidential campaign will feature even more partisan polarization than the
2012 one did.

In May, Clinton suggested that she would not only protect President Barack
Obama's executive actions on immigration, which are currently tied up in
court, but she would do even more than Obama has to protect settled
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. "If Congress refuses to act, as
president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,"
Clinton said.

Clinton's speech today, at Manhattan's New School, essentially confirmed
her pitch to be "Obama-plus."

"If you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly," she said. "So we have to
raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on
overtime. And then we have to go further."

On health care, she promised to "protect the Affordable Care Act -- and
build on it."

Wall Street? As president, she would fight efforts to undermine Obama-era
financial regulations and work to "protect the reforms we’ve made," she
said. Oh, and while she's busy guarding the president's reforms, “We also
have to go beyond Dodd-Frank."

A campaign promising a policy menu of Obama-plus should rally Democrats --
and give the party's most liberal activists less cause to swoon over
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. But it also will expand the gulf between
the Democratic and Republican nominees even beyond the gap between Obama
and Mitt Romney in 2012. Presuming the 2016 Republican nominee's platform
roughly resembles Romney's, the distance between Clinton and any GOP
opponent -- even one with a more immigrant-friendly policy than
"self-deportation" -- will be vast. Among other battle lines, the 2016
campaign is shaping up to be a stark competition between (Democratic) labor
and (Republican) capital.

On rare occasions, Clinton has distanced herself from Obama. On Syria, she
criticized the chaos in the region and leaned right by suggesting Obama
should have been more aggressive in intervening in the conflict. On
teachers and education policy, she has been coy. On trade, she has been
noncommittal about the Pacific trade deal that Obama is negotiating, while
hinting that a deal might be too costly to American workers. "Trade has
been a major driver of the economy over recent decades but it has also
contributed to hollowing out our manufacturing base and many hardworking
communities," she said today. "So we do need to set a high bar for trade
agreements."

Clinton has a freer hand discussing economics than Obama had in 2012, when
his campaign was shadowed by sluggish, post-Great-Recession growth. She
already has an easier time attacking Republican economic policy head-on.
Speaking of 1993 and 2009, when Democrats last took over the presidency
from Republicans, she said, "Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic
president has had to come in and clean up the mess. I think the results
speak for themselves."

In 2008, Clinton ran as the hardheaded pragmatist against Obama's dreamy
idealist. Now she is saying she will secure his hard-won policy gains, and
build on them. Given the likelihood of a Republican House of
Representatives, a Clinton White House would find it easier to secure than
build. Either way, Obama is the foundation.

*A Sneak Peek at Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/a-sneak-peek-at-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-plan->
// Bloomberg // Richard Rubin – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested Monday that she
may endorse lower capital gains taxes on long-held assets as a way to
discourage a quick-profits mentality in the U.S. economy.

That could mean a sliding scale of tax rates on investments, offering a tax
break to patient investors while continuing to subject the profits from
fast trades to the highest marginal tax rates. Today's system, by contrast,
features a preferential tax rate on assets held more than a year. But it
makes no distinction beyond that. Gains on stocks held for 366 days are
taxed at the same rate as those held 36 years.

"I will soon be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to
reward longer-term investments that create jobs, more than just quick
trades," Clinton said during an economic policy speech in New York.

Clinton didn't offer further details, and her campaign didn't immediately
respond to questions, but Neera Tanden, one of her most prominent outside
advisers, last month proposed a sliding-scale capital gains tax in which
the rate would decline the longer an asset is held.

"Once an investor holds a share past the one-year mark, the tax code
provides no incentives to maintain the position any longer," Tanden and
investor Blair Effron of Centerview Partners wrote. "A sliding-scale
capital gains tax would involve more time horizons, extend further into the
future, and avoid the kinds of kinks in tax schedules that policy wonks
hate."

Under current law, the top capital gains tax rate on assets held for less
than a year is 43.4 percent. That rate drops to 23.8 percent for assets
held more than a year.

If this proposal sounds familiar, it is. President Bill Clinton signed a
law in 1997 that would have imposed an 18 percent top capital gains tax
rate on assets purchased after 2000 and held for at least five years. The
Bush tax cuts of 2003 erased that idea and replaced it with lower rates for
all.

It's also unclear how big a practical effect a sliding-scale tax rate would
have. Many stocks already aren't subject to taxes at all because they're
held by university endowments, retirement accounts and pension funds.

Unlike Republicans who have proposed eliminating the capital gains tax,
Clinton has a proposal that would limit how much the wealthiest households
could benefit from lower capital gains taxes.

She backs the Buffett Rule, an Obama policy named for billionaire (and
Clinton backer) Warren Buffett that calls for a minimum 30 percent tax on
the highest-income households. Depending on where she sets the capital
gains rates, the Buffett Rule could claw back some of the benefits.

Clinton's reference to "quick trades" is "silly'" because the fastest
trades are subject to high tax rates already, said Malcolm Salter, a
Harvard Business School professor who has proposed a gradually declining
tax rate for capital gains that would hit zero after five years. Still, he
said, the idea of preferential capital gains tax rates for long-held assets
has promise as a way of encouraging companies to change executive
compensation practices. And, he said, it could shift the political
discussion on capital gains out of the usual back-and-forth debate between
the merits of the growth that could be spurred by lower rates and the
revenue that would be lost to the Treasury.

But Salter questioned whether Clinton's middle road—offering investors a
break on capital gains taxes in return for more long-term investments—is
salable in the current political environment. The idea should be raised, he
said, in the context of a broader discussion about the "institutional
corruption that's eating away at the core" of American capitalism. "The
Democrats would have a very difficult time trying to sell this because most
people don't understand what's at stake,'' said Salter, who said he hasn't
been in touch with Clinton's team.

That "quick trades" line also drew a quick rebuke from another target of
Clinton—the private equity industry.  Clinton's move to tax carried
interest as ordinary income, not capital gains, is at odds with her stated
desire for patient investing, said Steve Judge, president of the Private
Equity Growth Capital Council. "Taxing long-term carried interest as
anything other than a long-term capital gain would deprive private equity,
venture capital, real estate, and many other businesses of the same
treatment available to other kinds of businesses that sell a long-term
capital asset for a profit," he said.

It's not clear if Clinton will back the changes to capital gains taxation
that President Barack Obama proposed earlier this year.

The president wants to raise the top tax rate to 28 percent and change a
rule that lets people pass appreciated assets to their heirs at death
without paying income taxes on the gains.

*Behind Hillary Clinton’s High Praise for a Republican Wall Street Guru
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/behind-hillary-clinton-s-high-praise-for-a-republican-wall-street-guru>
// Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 13, 2015 *

In Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech Monday morning at the New School, the
first major address of her 2016 presidential campaign to focus on the
economy, she spoke for middle-class workers and against trickle-down
policies. Clinton's aides had previously indicated that the focus would not
be on Wall Street and the need to regulate the financial industry—she may
be feeling the effects of Bernie Sanders’s momentum, but she has not
suddenly become him—and yet some among the liberal wing of the Democratic
party might have found themselves surprised by a suggestion concerning
Terrence Duffy, the executive chairman and president of futures market
operator CME group and a registered Republican.

Clinton said, “We should listen to Terry Duffy.”

In her address on lifting wages, Clinton cited an op-ed Duffy published two
years ago in the Wall Street Journal that, she said, “really caught my
attention. He wrote, and I quote: ‘I’m concerned that those of us in
financial services have forgotten who we serve—and that the public knows
it… Some Wall Streeters can too easily slip into regarding their work as a
kind of money-making game divorced from the concerns of Main Street.’”

Duffy’s op-ed centered on the diminishing numbers of Ivy-League graduates
entering financial firms. He said:

In 2008, Harvard sent 28% of its graduating class to firms where they would
become bankers, traders or investors. By 2010, Harvard was sending just 17%
of its graduating class. Yale graduates entering the finance business fell
to 14% from 26% during the same period. Even Princeton, traditionally the
most finance-friendly school, fell to 35.5% from 40%.

Wall Street was losing young peoples’ trust. It had to show talented minds
“what makes people tick,” had to show them the value of the wealth sector.
Duffy concluded, “We have to make the case to young people that if you want
a remarkable career at a company with integrity that helps people and
influences the world, then come to Wall Street.”

Of all the ways for a politician to underline the importance of remembering
and honoring the people you serve, quoting Duffy’s op-ed was a peculiar
one. But a look at Clinton’s relationship with Duffy, who made $6.7 million
last year, might explain why.

Duffy may be a registered Republican, but he is a Clinton supporter as
well. He endorsed Clinton in her 2008 run, saying, “We need a president
like Hillary Clinton who understands the important role that financial
markets play in our global economy.” He added, “Like no other candidate,
Hillary Clinton crosses party lines to combine the visionary leadership and
pragmatic problem-solving skills that this country needs in its President.”
He gave the maximum contribution of $4,600 to her 2008 campaign.

Duffy declined comment for this article, though Anita Liskey, the managing
director of communications at CME, confirmed his current party
registration. She told me, of Duffy's relationship with Clinton, “He knows
her well and he’s obviously pleased that she mentioned his piece.”

E-mails released last week by the State Department show evidence of this
relationship, as Bloomberg’s Jennifer Epstein and Ben Brody have detailed.
Duffy asked Clinton to stop by a dinner he was hosting for “150 or so folks
from the exchange,” and she in turn asked an aide to help find a moment for
Duffy's group to visit the State Department. He was the conduit through
which Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican rival in the presidential race,
sent greetings.

Their e-mails have taken a more personal tone, as well. In May 2009, as
Bloomberg’s Zachary Mider reported, Duffy e-mailed Clinton to invite her to
a company event, and added, “You’re doing an incredible job.” In September
came another invitation—and additional words of praise. “Once again,” he
wrote, “you’re doing an amazing job.” She responded this time that she
would try hard to be there, and later apologized for the delay. “I've been
hip deep in the rollout of the Afghanistan strategy,” Clinton said, “I hope
you, your family, and the futures markets are all well!”

In 2010, when Duffy was being honored by the American Friends of Hebrew
University, he asked Clinton to deliver the keynote (she was unable; the
conservative columnist George Will did instead).

But in November 2013, Clinton traveled to the beachside Ritz-Carlton Resort
of Naples, Florida, to deliver the keynote at the CME Group’s Global
Financial Leadership Conference—an annual event that Duffy has called the
“Davos of Derivatives.”

The group featured some highlights of Clinton's appearance that day, for
which she was paid, alongside men like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, former Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler,
former Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus Athanasios Orphanides, former
members of the European Central Bank executive board Lorenzo Bini Smaghi
and Jurgen Stark.

OpenMarkets, the company's online magazine, shows a picture of Duffy and
Clinton side by side onstage. The caption reads, “CME Group Executive
Chairman and President Terry Duffy leads a Q&A with Former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton about America’s economic and political challenges.”

*Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton’s Economic Attacks on Top Republican Rivals
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/fact-checking-hillary-clinton-s-economic-attacks-on-top-republican-rivals>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton launched direct attacks on three of her top Republican
rivals Monday in the first major economic speech of her presidential
campaign, setting the table for what will be the defining policy debate of
the 2016 election.

Here's what she said during the address at the New School in New York City,
and how her claims stack up to the facts.

Jeb Bush

Clinton took a pointed shot at the former Florida governor's
eyebrow-raising remarks last week to the New Hampshire Union Leader that
"people need to work longer hours" in order to boost their income.

"He must not have met very many American workers," the Democratic
front-runner said, adding that "they don't need a lecture, they need a
raise."

Clinton and Bush have already tussled over his comment, which Democrats
jumped on to paint the ex-governor as an out-of-touch elitist, pointing out
that Americans work longer hours than almost all of the developed world.
Bush's quote seemed open to that interpretation, but he prefaced it by
saying "[w]orkforce participation has to rise," suggesting he meant too few
people work full-time. He labeled the attack an "out-of-context" reading,
saying he wants people who are involuntarily stuck in part-time jobs to
have opportunities to work full-time.

Bernie Sanders, a fellow Democratic presidential candidate who also
criticized Bush, said last week on CNN: "If he is talking about the need
for more full-time jobs rather than part-time jobs, he’s absolutely right,
that’s what we have to do."

Marco Rubio

"Senator Rubio's [plan] would cut taxes for households making around $3
million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the
earnings of a typical family," Clinton said. "Well, that's a sure
budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy, and that's the kind of bad
economics you're likely to hear from any of the candidates on the other
side."

The basis of Clinton's criticism is an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a
joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, of a
proposal by Utah Senator Mike Lee. Rubio, the junior senator from Florida,
has since joined Lee as a partner. "Those in the top 0.1 percent, who make
$3.3 million and up, would be in line for an average tax cut of $240,000—a
boost in after-tax income of 3.8 percent," TPC found.

In other words, it's not necessarily true that those in the lower end of
that group—"around $3 million"—would get a tax break of as much as
$240,000. Clinton's campaign website describes it more accurately by
saying: "Senator Rubio's plan would cut taxes for households making above
$3 million a year by almost $240,000" (emphasis added).

That said, Rubio's overall tax break for upper earners could be much bigger
than Clinton described, depending on a household's mix of capital and wage
income. A newer version of the Rubio-Lee plan eliminates all capital gains
and dividend taxation. According to the Tax Foundation, another, more
right-leaning think tank, the top 1 percent would have an average increase
in after-tax income (another way of saying tax cut) of 11.5 percent.

Scott Walker

"Republican governors like Scott Walker," Clinton said, "have made their
names stomping on workers' rights, and practically all the Republican
candidates hope to do the same as president. I will fight back against
these mean-spirited, misguided attacks."

Heated political rhetoric aside, there's not much to fact check here. Her
underlying premise is correct that the Wisconsin governor's ticket to
stardom on the right was taking on public sector unions, most notably by
ending their collective bargaining rights. It has been a defining feature
of Walker's tenure, leading to a failed recall election against him, and it
is a fight he is touting as a selling point to Republican voters.

As to Clinton's other assertion, Republicans won't like her framing, but
their party is unabashedly aligned against unions that seek to bolster
workers' clout against their employers. Richard Trumka, the president of
the large labor union AFL-CIO, on Monday labeled Walker a "national
disgrace," an attack that one Republican operative said was a "badge of
honor."

*Hillary Clinton Vows to Revamp Wall Street
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/hillary-clinton-vows-to-revamp-wall-street>
// Bloomberg // Kim Chipman – July 13, 2015 *

“Too big to fail is still too big a problem,” Hillary Clinton says in
policy speech at the New School in NYC.

Pledges to rein in “excessive risk” on Wall Street

Says will “soon” propose plan to revamp capital gains taxes to reward
long-term investments as opposed to “quick trades”

Stock buybacks shouldn’t be used just for quick boost in stock prices

Wall Street needs to refocus on long term as opposed to solely quick gains

Financial industry should be helping “Main Street grow and prosper” and
helping cos.

be more globally competitive

In yrs before crash, financial firms piled “risk upon risk” as federal
regulators “either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up”

Pledges to fight back against attacks to Dodd-Frank while also calling to
go beyond the 2010 law

There are firms still “too complex and too risky”

“The problems aren’t limited to the big banks”; risks emerging from
so-called shadow banking system, including hedge funds, high-speed traders,
non-bank finance cos.

Such businesses getting little oversight

Misconduct in financial industry is “shocking”; can be “no tolerance” for
such criminal behavior

Too often seems individuals responsible for misdeeds meet limited
consequences or “none at all even when they’ve already pocketed the gains”

Will make sure stock market works for “everyday investors”

Says she’ll give details on her proposals to encourage cos. to share
profits with workers later this week

*Hillary Clinton to Propose Incentives for Corporate Profit Sharing
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/hillary-clinton-unveils-economic-policy-vision-for-middle-class>
// Bloomberg News // Jennifer Epstein – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton on Monday will detail what she calls a “win-win” plan to
encourage companies to share their profits with employees as she outlines
her broader economic vision for the United States, which centers on
policies aimed at boosting the wages of middle-class workers, her campaign
said.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton plans to say in New York during the
first major economic policy speech of her three-month-old presidential bid,
according to excerpts provided by her campaign.

More widespread corporate profit-sharing “will be good for workers and good
for business,” she will say. “Studies show profit-sharing that gives
everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity and put
money directly into employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win.”

The Democratic front-runner has hinted at the idea before, saying last
month that she hopes to create “new incentives” for companies to share
profits with more employees than just their top executives. A Clinton aide
said the candidate will offer up changes to the tax code to encourage
companies to participate, but did not say what those changes would be.

Clinton's Monday speech, to be delivered at the New School, a progressive
university in Greenwich Village, is a big-picture survey of her views on
the economy as a whole that will offer an introduction to policy proposals
that she will detail in the coming weeks. She'll start on Thursday with a
rollout of the profit-sharing plan during a campaign stop in New Hampshire,
the aide said.

*Hillary Clinton Says She'll Focus on Growing the Middle Class
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-13/corporate-profit-sharing-good-for-workers-business-clinton>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton on Monday outlined a plan for economic growth focused on
the middle class, in one of the first major policy speeches of her
presidential campaign.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can’t have
one without the other," the Democratic front-runner said at New York's New
School, a university known as a liberal think tank on economics and foreign
policy. "We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up
families and lifts up our country. That will be my mission from the first
day I'm president to the last."

The Democratic presidential front-runner's speech was a big-picture survey
of her views on the economy offering an introduction to policy proposals
that she will detail in the coming weeks, beginning Thursday with the
rollout of her plan to encourage companies to share profits with their
workers. Among other things, she said she will offer a capital gains tax
that would create incentives for job creation over short-term profits. She
also plans to encourage companies to share profits with employees, arguing
that profit sharing "can boost productivity."

"Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce," she said.

While Clinton's speech was rooted in policy, she was politically aggressive.

She went after former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's recent assertion that
Americans should be working "longer hours"  ( which Democrats interpreted
to mean Americans are not working enough, while the Republican presidential
candidate has asserted that it was more about helping workers get the hours
they want).

"He must not have met very many American workers ... they don't need a
lecture, they need a raise," she said.

Clinton also name-checked the newest entrant into the Republican
presidential race, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who announced his
candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination this morning on
Twitter and will deliver his inaugural campaign speech this evening.
"Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names by stomping
on worker's rights" and their attacks are "mean-spirited and misguided,"
she said.

Clinton's plan is centered on three goals: boosting workforce participation
and increasing public-private investments; rewarding work more fairly; and
encouraging long-term thinking and sustainable business strategies.

*Clinton pivots left in first economic address
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article27117565.html>
// McClatchy // Kevin Hall – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is pivoting left of center in an economic address that is
short on detail yet paints broad strokes of the themes she’ll hit during
her bid for the Democratic nomination and presidency.

In a speech delivered Monday morning at the New School, a self-described
progressive university in the heart of Manhattan, Clinton struck themes
such as boosting middle-class incomes, similar to a theme in President
Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The Clinton campaign team highlighted what it called a novel proposal to
expand company profit-sharing with employees, proposing a change in the tax
code to make it happen.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton said in remarks released ahead of
her speech where she announced the profit- sharing plan.

Clinton added that profit sharing “will be good for workers and good for
business. Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a
company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into
employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win."

The issue of profit sharing fits neatly into the broader debate over Wall
Street and who wins in America. Companies that are publicly traded are
under pressure to show quarterly profits, often at the expense of investing
for the long term. It also means that these profits flow to shareholders
more than to stakeholders such as company employees.

Americans whose 401 K retirement plans invest in publicly traded companies
benefit indirectly from corporate profits. But only 52 million workers have
such retirement plans, so the benefits from corporate profits flow to the
wealthy, who are more likely to be invested in financial markets.

Corporate profits in the first quarter of this year were up 9 percent over
a 12-month period, although they dipped in the last two quarters because of
the strengthening U.S. dollar, which made U.S. goods and services more
expensive relative to other major currencies.

*Hillary Clinton’s New Mantra: It’s the Wages, Stupid
<http://time.com/3955764/hillary-clinton-economic-income/> // TIME //
Michael Scherer – July 13, 2015 *

It’s the wages, stupid.

That’s the magic sauce—in just four words—that Hillary Clinton believes
will make her the next President of the United States. In a speech Monday
to lay out her approach, she chose a more verbose version of the same
message. “Wages need to rise to keep up with costs. Paychecks need to grow.
Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay
ahead,” she said. “The defining economic challenge of our time clear. We
must raise incomes for hardworking Americans.”

As a theme, the approach is not new. A chart showing the divergence between
median income growth and productivity growth over the last decade sat at
the heart of Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign for President. “‘I’m working
harder and falling behind,'” David Simas, Obama’s political strategist,
explained after the 2012 election. “That was the North Star. Everything we
did and everything we said was derivative of that sentiment.” As she spoke
Monday, Clinton’s campaign tweeted out a version of the same chart that
once hung at Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters and now hangs in Simas’
West Wing office.

The difference now is that Clinton inherits a situation that is even more
dire for American voters than the one that Obama struggled with over his
past two campaigns, both of which promised improvement for middle class
incomes that has yet to arrive. Even as the labor market has tightened in
recent years and the national economy has continued to grow, wages have
remained flat or, in many cases, declined.

A recent analysis of Census data by Democratic economist Robert J. Shapiro,
whose work helped inform the Obama campaign’s approach, found that the
economy shifted gears for American incomes after the 2001 recession.
“Everybody declines from 2002 on relative to the 1980s and 1990s, and
probably a majority of the country saw their incomes decline as they age,”
he said, noting that unlike many economic indicators, this is one that
voters feel directly. “It’s politically important because it’s people’s
actual experience.” Shapiro found that the only two groups who saw their
incomes increase on average between 2002 and 2013 were college graduates
and households that were in their early 20s at the beginning of the decade.

To counteract this shift, Clinton proposed a variety of policy buckets she
plans to focus on, many of which she did not detail. These include tax
changes that will encourage large companies to share profits with
employees, tax increases for the wealthy and new regulations of the
financial sector. “The truth is the current rules for our economy do reward
some work, like financial trading, for example much more than other work,
like actually building and selling things, the work that has always been
the backbone of our economy,” she said. “To get all incomes rising again,
we need to strike a better balance.”

The focus on wages also gives a frame for Clinton to roll out a raft of
other evergreen liberal policies, which could have indirect impacts on wage
growth. These include better family leave policies to encourage more women
to enter the workforce, lower health care costs, better early childhood
education subsidies, more spending on infrastructure and “enhancing” Social
Security.

Overall, the rhetoric draws heavily on the work of the left wing of the
Democratic Party, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Clinton Administration economist Joseph
Stiglitz. Though Clinton stopped short of calling for redistribution of
wealth to combat inequality, a constant theme of the left, she did embrace
the notion that the current economic stagnation for many Americans is a
policy choice. “The choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage
for what American life in the middle class and our economy will be like in
this century,” she said.

At two points, Clinton contrasted her vision with the Obama Administration.
First, she criticized the Justice Department and regulators for not being
aggressive enough in prosecuting the misdeeds of financial firms. She also
called for more financial regulation. “I will appoint and empower
regulators who understand that too big to fail is still too big a problem,”
she said, in a swipe at Obama, who has argued that the problem of
too-big-to-fail was largely solved by financial reform in 2010.

Perhaps most important, the speech set up a contrast with Republican
frontrunner Jeb Bush, who has laid out an economic vision of rising
prosperity based on growing the whole economy by 4% annually, a target that
few economists think can be reached. Clinton’s argument is that total
growth is not enough. There also needs to be a reshuffling of the rules
that makes the gains from that growth more widely distributed.

The question for Clinton is much the same as the challenge faced by Obama.
She may have diagnosed the disease in a way that the American people have
endorsed in the past, but can she deliver the antidote? Republicans, who
have a dramatically different world view, have been able to block many of
Obama’s reforms, and would likely have similar power under a Hillary
Clinton Administration. There is also a skepticism, shared by many liberal
economists, about just how much the reforms she laid out will impact
incomes, which have been under pressure because technology and global
competition have put a cap on prices and an increase in the unemployment
rolls.

But that is a question for a later time. The first jobs for Clinton are to
win the nomination and then the White House. And by borrowing heavily from
her successful predecessor, her team believes she has a winning formula.

*What to Know About Hillary Clinton’s Economic Proposals
<http://time.com/3955359/hillary-clinton-economy-2016-presidential-election/>
// TIME // Sam Frizell – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton called Monday for “progressive, principled and pragmatic
policies” aimed at boosting middle-class incomes, as she laid out her
vision of the American economy in the first major policy speech of her
presidential campaign.

It was a speech intended to capitalize on the surge of populism that has
swept much of the country and excited the Democratic base, and also lay out
a roadmap for the goals of a Clinton presidency.

Clinton delivered her speech as a series of policy solutions for problems
she sees in the American economy. Republicans quickly dismissed them.
“Hillary Clinton’s entire economic pitch is built upon the false premise
that Democrats have not occupied the White House for the past six and a
half years—a period that has seen the weakest economic recovery in modern
history, rising income inequality, an ever-shrinking middle class, and
negative growth in the first 3 months of this year,” Republican National
Committee spokesman Michael Short said in a statement.

Below is a cheat sheet of what Clinton says ails the economy, and how she
says she’ll fix it. Note that many of the details are missing, as Clinton
says in the coming months she’ll fill in the gaps with more policy speeches.

Problem as described by Clinton: Income inequality is a drag on the economy

Wealth inequality is slowing economic growth, Clinton said. It’s not just a
fairness issue, she said, but a practical one. “The evidence is in:
inequality is a drag on our entire economy,” Clinton said.

How she wants to fix it

-Raise the minimum wage. “If you work hard you should be compensated
fairly,” Clinton said. But unlike Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who have called for a $15 minimum wage,
Clinton has not set a firm target for the wage.

-Crack down on employers who misclassify employees as contractors, and
fight wage theft.

-Protect President Obama’s health care reform law, lower health care costs
and make prescription drugs more affordable.

-Defend and “enhance” social security to make it easier to save for the
future.

-Create tax incentives to encourage corporate profit-sharing for employees.

-Tighten the tax code to make sure “millionaires don’t pay lower [tax]
rates than their secretaries” and closing tax loopholes.

-Support unions and the right to organize. “If we want to get serious about
raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers,”
Clinton said.

Problem as described by Clinton: America needs to create more jobs and grow
the economy

“More growth means more jobs and more new businesses. More jobs give people
choices about where to work,” Clinton said. “That’s why economists that
getting closer to full employment is crucial for raising incomes.”

How she wants to fix it

-Create for an infrastructure bank that would “finance world-class
airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports” across the states.

-Build broadband networks with greater diversity of providers.

-Pass comprehensive immigration reform. Bringing the millions of
undocumented immigrants into the legitimate economy, Clinton said, would
create $700 billion of growth over 10 years.

-Invest in cleaner renewable energy and fund research and development. “The
time has come to make America the world’s clean energy superpower,” Clinton
said. “These investments will create millions of jobs.”

-Provide tax relief to small businesses, which Clinton said create 60% of
new jobs in this country.

Problem as described by Clinton: Women aren’t participating fully in the
economy

Clinton pointed to data showing that in 1990, the United States ranked 7th
out of 24 developed countries in women’s labor force participation; by
2013, she said, the U.S. had fallen to 19th. “We cant afford to leave
talent on the sidelines,” Clinton said.

How she wants to fix it

Clinton is advocating for fair pay laws, fair scheduling and easily
accessible childcare. The lack of paid parental leave makes it inordinately
difficult, Clinton said, for women to have a family and a job.

Problem as described by Clinton: The U.S. isn’t focused on long-term growth

American businesses are too focused on short-term growth, a problem Clinton
referred to as “quarterly capitalism.” The economy, Clinton said, should be
structured to encourage investment over years and decades.

“I believe part of public service is planting trees under whose shade
you’ll never sit,” Clinton said.

How she wants to fix it

-Create a tax credit of $1,500 to businesses for any worker that they train
and hire. “Workers are assets. Investing in them pays of,” Clinton said.

-Reform capital gains taxes to encourage long-term investments over
high-frequency trading.

Problem as described by Clinton: Wall Street is still engaged in risky
business and trading practices

Too many individuals were not held accountable for the excesses of the last
decade that led to the recession, Clinton said, and the Dodd-Frank
financial reform law did not go far enough.

How she wants to fix it

-Appoint more regulators, prosecute individuals and firms, tighten rules
for trading.

“We’ll ensure no firm is too complex to manage or oversee,” Clinton said.

*Hillary Clinton Will Pledge Profit-Sharing Incentives to Boost Wages
<http://time.com/3955261/hillary-clinton-profit-sharing/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton will on Monday pledge to change the tax code to encourage
corporate profit-sharing, calling such programs a “win-win” for business
and employees.

Profit-sharing “will be good for workers and good for business,” Clinton
will say on Monday, according to an advance excerpt provided by her
campaign. “Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a
company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into
employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win.”

Clinton’s plan involves changing the tax code to push businesses to share
corporate earnings with their employees, said a Clinton campaign official.
She will expand further on the plan at a campaign stop in New Hampshire
this week.

The profit-sharing proposal is part of the Democratic frontrunner’s broad
vision for the economy that Clinton will be laying out in a speech Monday.

At the New School in New York, Clinton will explain that she envisions an
economy that focuses on middle-class income growth over GDP growth for its
own sake. The former secretary of state is riding a wave of economic
populism, with many progressives discontent with the worsening income
inequality in the country.

Many of the proposals Clinton will lay out are intended to boost wages and
improve life for working families: paid leave, raising the minimum wage and
protecting collective bargaining.

Her profit-sharing plan, the Clinton campaign official said, is a part of
that. “Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton will say on Monday.

*Shrinking Paychecks: Hillary Clinton Tackles 2016’s Toughest Economic
Question
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/13/422621139/shrinking-paychecks-hillary-clinton-takes-on-2016s-toughest-question>
// NPR // Danielle Kurtzleben – July 13, 2015 *

In a Monday speech, Hillary Clinton focused on a trend that millions of
Americans know all too intimately: declining incomes.

The Clinton campaign is calling the phenomenon of stagnant wages "the
defining economic challenge of our time," and as debates and primaries draw
ever closer, it's becoming clear that jump-starting Americans' wages is
going to be the defining challenge of the election. Candidates are
furiously trying to differentiate themselves on how to deal with
unstoppable phenomena.

A Recent, Scary Problem

The median U.S. household earned $51,939 in 2013. That's down by nearly 9
percent from the 1999 peak of nearly $56,900.

This decline in incomes isn't just about the Great Recession. Over a longer
time frame, workers' share of the U.S. economic pie has shrunk. This is
something economists call the "labor share" or "wage share" of the economy.
Consider the following chart, which shows labor's share of economic output
over time (the Federal Reserve has indexed the data in such a way that 2009
equals 100, but the point is more the direction than the numbers). That has
been declining over the longer term as well.

Knowing what's behind this problem shows just what makes it hard to combat:
Some of the biggest factors behind that shrinking labor share are also
genies that are hard to put back into the proverbial bottle.

Why Are Workers Losing Money?

There are a lot of explanations for that shrinking labor share of income,
but one popular one is that the Great Recession exacerbated longer-term
trends that were already at work. That recession hangover still hasn't gone
away. Employment is still pretty low right now, and when there's that much
slack in the labor market, it's harder for workers to negotiate for higher
paychecks. In addition, plenty of workers who are working part time want
more hours. The labor market is healing, but there's still enough remaining
slack that employers have the leverage.

Still, even once the U.S. is at full employment, longer-term factors could
continue to eat away at workers' paychecks. One of the most commonly blamed
factors behind the shrinking labor share is technology. Many jobs that can
be routinized — scanning groceries and taking money, keeping a schedule and
filing away documents, analyzing legal documents — are increasingly done by
machines, threatening workers like store clerks, secretaries and
paralegals. And while it's true that technology helps create jobs, many of
those in the "gig economy" Clinton referenced Monday are low-paid and
benefit-free — think Uber drivers and TaskRabbits.

Another factor is globalization. Increasing trade has its benefits and
drawbacks — cheaper goods but the loss of some jobs to other countries, for
example. A growing financial sector is also considered a potential cause
behind the shrinking labor share, as businesses invest in capital instead
of labor.

To the extent that these forces are indeed shrinking Americans' incomes,
one of the key economic issues to watch in this election, then, will be
whether and how candidates deal with these mammoth forces. They're all
trends that would be remarkably difficult to roll back: You can't
un-integrate an increasingly globalized world, you can't rewind
technological progress, and shrinking the U.S. financial system would be,
at the very least, a monumental undertaking.

As Clinton herself said of technology and trade, "All of these trends are
real, and none, none is going away." Throughout her speech, she framed the
challenge as one of dealing with new economic forces that prior presidents
(like her husband) never even considered.

Clinton didn't outline specific policies in her speech, though she did
advocate for unions, better paid leave policies and tougher regulations on
Wall Street, among other things. At the same time, she blasted her
Republican opponents' policies that are likewise aimed at helping the
American economy: Marco Rubio's tax reform plan, Scott Walker's anti-union
policies in Wisconsin and Jeb Bush's recent claim that he wants Americans
to work longer hours as part of his bid to grow the economy by 4 percent.
(The Bush campaign has said he meant part-time workers should get more
hours if they want them.)

"He must not have met very many American workers," Clinton said. "They
don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

The Important Things Clinton Left Out

Clinton may have come out swinging against her conservative opponents, but
she also toed a careful line, stopping short of creeping too far into class
warfare territory.

It's true that she blasted Rubio's tax plan as benefiting the wealthy too
much, and she also advocated closing tax loopholes that the wealthy take
advantage of. But she also made it clear that she still wants the richest
Americans, as well as the poorest, to continue prospering.

"The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hard-working
families, not just for successful CEOs and money managers," she said,
adding, "I want to see our economy work for the struggling, the striving,
and the successful."

It's that all-encompassing inclusiveness that some on the left have
criticized for nearly six months now, since the Center for American
Progress released its report on "inclusive prosperity," considered an
economic blueprint for a Hillary Clinton administration. Critics like
Robert Reich (labor secretary under Bill Clinton) have said the more
important (and controversial) issue she needs to tackle is income
distribution.

That's one area where Hillary Clinton's rhetoric stands in stark contrast
to her most visible Democratic opponent right now, Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders. While Clinton wants inclusive growth, Sanders says that maybe
growth isn't all that important if not everyone shares in it, as the
Washington Post's Jim Tankersley writes.

One other big area Clinton left out Monday: the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
one of the areas where Sanders most often attacks her. The closest she came
was a vague call for setting a "high bar" on trade deals. She has been
notably quiet on TPP, the massive and controversial trade deal the Obama
administration is negotiating right now. Many on the left, including
unions, hate the deal, saying it will hurt American workers' paychecks. In
a speech about that very topic, it was an important omission, and her
supporters and opponents alike will assuredly continue to watch closely to
see exactly what she thinks about this hot economic topic.

*Hillary Clinton Puts Paycheck Feminism at the Center of Her Economic
Agenda
<http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-puts-paycheck-feminism-at-the-center-of-her-economic-agenda/>
// The Nation // Michelle Goldberg – July 13, 2015 *

illary Clinton’s speech today was the most progressive address on economics
by a major-party presidential candidate in a generation. It was strongly
feminist and pro-union. It called for “enhancing” Social Security and
stepping up prosecutions of Wall Street malefactors, and specifically
attacked HSBC, the banking giant and Clinton Foundation donor. The speech
marks a decisive break from the technocratic triangulation of her husband’s
administration. As Lawrence Mishel points out at the Economic Policy
Institute, it was notable that Clinton didn’t propose market-based
solutions for wage stagnation, which she defined as the central economic
challenge of our time. Rather than offering Third Way panaceas like worker
retraining or middle-class tax cuts, she championed strong government
intervention on behalf of workers: a higher minimum wage, strengthened
collective bargaining, full employment, and cracking down “on bosses who
exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors.”

That last bit seems particularly significant for what it says about how
much politics has changed since the 1990s. Clinton’s words, after all, seem
to directly allude to an employment dispute at Uber. As a story about the
contingent workforce in today’s New York Times begins, “When the California
Labor Commissioner’s Office ruled last month that an Uber driver was an
employee deserving of a variety of workplace protections—and was not, as
the company maintained, an independent contractor—it highlighted the
divided feelings many Americans have about what is increasingly being
called the ‘gig economy.’” Whereas Bill Clinton was known for championing
Silicon Valley, Hillary Clinton has taken clear aim at the employment model
underlying some of its hottest companies.

It’s also important that Hillary Clinton has put paycheck feminism at the
center of her economic agenda. The speech focused on all that’s lost when
women are forced out of the workplace by inadequate leave and childcare
policies, without any wishy-washy obeisance to the glories of housewifery.
“The movement of women into the workforce over the past forty years was
responsible for more than three and a half trillion dollars in economic
growth,” Clinton said. “But that progress has stalled. The United States
used to rank 7th out of 24 advanced countries in women’s labor force
participation. By 2013, we had dropped to 19th. That represents a lot of
unused potential for our economy and for American families. Studies show
that nearly a third of this decline relative to other countries is because
they’re expanding family-friendly policies like paid leave and we are not….
It’s time to recognize that quality, affordable childcare is not a
luxury—it’s a growth strategy.” Again, we’ve come a long way from the ’90s,
when Clinton was excoriated for making it clear that she valued her career
over stay-at-home motherhood, and, as penance, had to participate in a
bake-off with Barbara Bush.

The obvious progressive rejoinder to this is that Hillary—negotiator of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, onetime member of Walmart’s board—is simply
saying what she feels she needs to in order to get elected. To which I’d
say: exactly! Clinton is a politician who believes in expediency and
pragmatism, and she has come to believe that it is expedient and pragmatic
to run an explicitly liberal campaign. This is a powerful statement about
the evolution of American politics. It’s long been a truism that
Republicans fear their base, while Democrats hate theirs. That is no longer
true; this is a speech meant to appeal to Elizabeth Warren’s supporters,
not Clinton’s Wall Street friends.

But won’t Clinton simply do those friends’ bidding once in office? Perhaps,
but the political-science literature suggests that, contrary to
conventional wisdom, politicians actually try to fulfill their campaign
pledges. Jonathan Bernstein looked at the scholarship surrounding the issue
in a 2012 Washington Monthly piece, discussing a book by Jeff Fishel that
analyzed campaigns from John F. Kennedy through Ronald Reagan. “What he
found was that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises;
the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition,
not presidential flip-flopping,” wrote Bernstein. “Similarly, Gerald Pomper
studied party platforms, and discovered that the promises parties made were
consistent with their postelection agendas. More recent and smaller-scale
papers have confirmed the main point: presidents’ agendas are clearly
telegraphed in their campaigns.”

George H.W.’s Bush’s reversal on his “no new taxes” pledge is considered
the exception to the rule. More typical is the way he chiseled away at
government support for family planning. It almost certainly contradicted
his personal beliefs; as a congressman, Bush was so passionate about birth
control that he was nicknamed “rubbers,” and as US representative to the
United Nations, he championed global action on overpopulation. As Reagan’s
vice president, however, he recognized that fealty to the anti-abortion
movement was non-negotiable, and after promising to serve it faithfully in
office, he never dared defy it. Politicians have very strong incentives to
do what they say they’re going to do, whatever their actual ideas.

So pundits may spend a lot of time wondering about Hillary Clinton’s
authenticity, but if you want to know what her administration would
actually attempt, what’s in her speeches probably matters more than what’s
in her secret heart. And so far in this campaign, what’s in her speeches
sounds pretty good.

*Hillary Clinton draws contrast with Republicans as she lays out economic
plan
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hillary-clinton-economy-20150713-story.html>
// LA Times // Evan Halper and Michael A. Memoli – July 13, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton used an economic policy speech Monday to make an
early contrast with her potential Republican opponents, promising to "rely
on evidence more than ideology" in an effort to restore financial security
for Americans left behind in the recent economic recovery.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said that boosting
middle-class wages was the "defining economic issue of our time" and
proposed to overhaul the tax code, promote corporate profit-sharing and
advance paid family leave to build what she called a "growth and fairness
economy."

"I want to see our economy work for the struggling, the striving and the
successful," Clinton said in her address at the New School in New York.
"We're not going to find all the answers we need today in the playbooks of
the past, we can't go back to the old policies that failed us before, nor
can we just replay the successes."

Corporate profit-sharing was an example of the "new ideas" Clinton said
she'd promote as president, saying it would give workers a stake in the
success of their employer as a way to "boost productivity and put money
directly in employees' pockets."

The emphasis on profit-sharing comes amid concerns by Clinton and the many
economists advising her that too much of the American economy has become
focused on fast earnings for those in top income brackets, to the detriment
of rank-and-file workers.

Clinton's speech represented the first look at what aides say will be a
detailed agenda, to be rolled out in the coming weeks, that seeks to push
capital toward more durable growth, creating incentives for investments in
infrastructure and research, for example, while closing what her advisors
say are tax loopholes that promote excessive risk-taking in the markets.

She also promoted familiar Democratic priorities such as pay equity for
women, paid family leave and affordable childcare, something she said was
not a "luxury" but a "growth strategy."

Her proposals take aim at a problem vexing economists: how to pull America
out of a prolonged period of stagnant middle-class wages, even at a time
when productivity is on the rise.

Income disparity has become a central issue in the race for the White
House, and Republican candidates have ideas that differ from Clinton's.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is building his economic agenda around a plan
to boost growth of the country’s gross domestic product to a sustained 4% a
year.

Calling inequality a "drag" on the entire economy, Clinton targeted Bush
directly for saying last week that Americans needed to "work longer hours"
-- a portion of the former Florida governor's discussion of economic
solutions that his campaign said critics have taken out of context. Clinton
said Bush "must not have met very many American workers," and challenged
him to repeat the claim to nurses, teachers and others who she said "do not
need a lecture. They need a raise."

Discussing tax reform, Clinton called a plan from Sen. Marco Rubio of
Florida that would slash taxes on top incomes a "budget-busting giveaway to
the super wealthy," the kind of plan that was typical of the "bad
economics" Republicans would propose.

And she attacked the newest GOP contender, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, for
"stomping on workers' rights" by seeking to undermine the strength of
public employee unions.

"I will fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided attacks," she
vowed, saying the decline of unions was responsible for a third of the
increase in income inequality. "If we want to get serious about raising
incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers."

The attacks on potential general election foes mirrored a recent effort by
President Obama to frame the general election debate on the economy on
favorable terms for the party. But Clinton also went a step further as she
seeks to boost her standing with liberal Democrats animated by the economic
fairness debate, promising to go beyond the Dodd-Frank financial reforms to
hold Wall Street accountable for abuses that have hurt the working class.

"While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt,
too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with
limited consequences or none at all, even when they have already pocketed
the gains," she said. "This is wrong, and on my watch it will change."

Bush's campaign responded that Clinton's speech was just a collection of
"antiquated proposals" to "protect the special interests that want to
stifle American ingenuity." The campaign of one of Clinton's Democratic
challengers, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, argued that she didn't
go far enough and cited his specific plans to target Wall Street in
particular as an example of the "fearless and progressive new leadership"
needed to fix America's problems.

*Hillary Clinton to tout profit sharing as a way to reduce income disparity
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hillary-clinton-economy-20150713-story.html>
// LA Times // Evan Halper – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton will make corporate profit sharing a key piece of
her economic agenda, proposing changes in the tax code that encourage
companies to boost employee compensation when earnings are robust,
according to excerpts of a major campaign address she will deliver Monday.

“We need new ideas,” says a section of the text shared by her campaign.
“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce."

Clinton's speech lauds profit sharing that gives workers a stake in the
success of their employer as a way to “boost productivity and put money
directly in employees' pockets."

The proposal is part of the Democratic presidential hopeful's overall plan
to narrow the income gap between the richest Americans and middle- and
low-wage earners. Clinton will unveil her plan for addressing it in a
speech at the New School in New York.

The emphasis on profit sharing comes amid concerns by Clinton and the many
economists advising her that too much of the American economy has become
focused on fast earnings for those in top income brackets, to the detriment
of rank-and-file workers.

Clinton's speech will introduce a detailed agenda – to be rolled out
gradually in the coming weeks – that seeks to push capital toward more
durable growth, incentivizing investments in infrastructure and research,
for example, while closing what her advisors say are tax loopholes that
promote excessive risk-taking in the markets.

The profit sharing and other proposals Clinton will discuss Monday take aim
at a problem vexing economists: how to pull America out of a prolonged
period of stagnant middle-class wages, even at a time when productivity is
on the rise.

Income disparity has become a central issue in the race for the White
House, and Republican candidates have ideas that differ from Clinton's.

Jeb Bush is building his economic agenda around a plan to boost growth of
the country’s gross domestic product to a sustained 4% a year.

Clinton will argue Monday that growth alone will not solve the problem of
an increasing gap in earnings between the richest Americans and everyone
else. She will say the economy needs to be restructured to include policies
that help distribute more of the nation’s wealth to the middle class.

Clinton is also promoting various social programs intended to give the
middle class a leg up, including easing the debt burden on college students
and requiring employers to offer paid family leave and sick time.

*What’s Hillary Clinton really trying to do with the economy?
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-plan-make-economy-more-fair/JiqYTv8lh46MXgvY7ABanL/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Evan Horowitz – July 13, 2015 *

In a major campaign address Monday morning, Hillary Clinton laid out her
plans to make the economy more fair, including by raising the minimum wage,
creating more affordable child care, and boosting the incomes of “everyday
Americans.”

Clinton was direct in her critique of Republican rivals, particularly Jeb
Bush’s controversial comment that Americans need to work more. But she was
silent about her closest Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, whose dogged
attacks on the burdens of inequality and the excesses of Wall Street have
attracted an unexpectedly large and passionate following.

What did Clinton propose?

Clinton’s remarks were fairly wide-ranging, covering everything from early
education to Washington budget battles.

At each step, however, she came back to the challenges facing “hard-working
Americans” — middle-class families and low-income workers whose wages have
been stuck in place for decades.

Clinton proposed a range of policies to shift the economic landscape and
give more power to workers. That includes raising the minimum wage,
encouraging companies to share profits with employees, and providing more
worker training.

Clinton used an agenda-setting economic speech to cast GOP prescriptions
for the economy as relics of the past.

She also emphasized the particular struggles of working women, like unequal
pay, poor parental leave policies, and the limited (often expensive)
options for high-quality child care.

“Women who want to work,” she said, “should be able to do so without
worrying every day about how they’re going to take care of their children
or what will happen if a family member gets sick.” (Obviously, these kinds
of challenges can affect men too but in the United States women bear the
greater burden of family responsibilities.)

How do Clinton’s plans compare to Republican proposals?

With 15 candidates now vying for the Republican nomination, it’s hard to
compare Clinton’s proposals with everything out there. But she did speak
directly about Jeb Bush’s call for 4 percent growth, as well as his
comments last week that to achieve such growth Americans would have to work
more.

“You may have heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to
work longer hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers.”

Yet, despite the jab, Clinton is also calling for Americans to work more.
For instance, during her speech she lamented that too many women were
leaving the workforce — and she and offered several strategies to bring
them back. Separately, she talked about the number of young
African-Americans and Latinos cut off from work, and suggested that getting
them into jobs would put them on a path to the middle class.

How do Clinton’s proposals compare to Bernie Sanders?

On the Democratic side, Clinton’s closest challenger is Senator Bernie
Sanders of Vermont, who has managed to attract a large, progressive
following and whose poll numbers have been slowly ticking up.

On most every issue, Sanders is more truculent and more worker-friendly
than Clinton. He doesn’t just call for an increase in the minimum wage but
for a real living wage. And where Clinton talks about how to get companies
to share their profits with workers, Sanders celebrates worker co-ops,
where workers actually own more businesses.

Even if she can’t outflank Sanders, Clinton’s remarks did seem designed to
peel off some support. She spent a fair bit of time castigating Wall Street
for its obsession with short-term gains as well as some of the execrable
scandals of recent years.

What she didn’t do was lay out a plan to address these problems — unlike
Sanders, who wants to break up the big financial institutions. But perhaps
Clinton is merely hoping to convince anti-Wall Street voters that she
shares their concerns and that the issue is at least on her radar.

How important is this speech?

It’s hardly a make-or-break moment in the 2016 presidential campaign, but
here’s one reason to take note of what Hillary Clinton said this morning:
Someday in the future, she may change her mind.

As the campaign goes on, the pool of opponents will shrink, the economy
will continue to change, and Clinton herself will face new challenges. Any
of those things could cause her to rethink her positions. And it’s
important to know when and how candidates shift.

After all, being president isn’t just about what you believe, it’s also
about how you respond to an ever-changing world.

*Hillary Clinton Attacks Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Economic
Policy Speech
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-scott-walker-jeb-bush-marco/story?id=32417860>
// ABC // Liz Kreutz – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton wants you to know her economic policy will be nothing like
those proposed by the GOP.

While delivering her first major economic policy speech of her campaign,
Clinton today called out Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker by name to
contrast her policies -- focused on strengthening the middle class and
increasing wages -- against those of her front-running Republican rivals.

In her remarks, delivered at the New School in downtown Manhattan, Clinton
first took aim at former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for his recent comment that
“people need to work longer hours.” (A remark Bush’s campaign said was
about unemployment.)

“You may have heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to
work longer hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers,”
the democratic presidential candidate said.

Clinton then went after Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, calling his tax reform
plan a “sure budget busting giveaway for the super wealthy.”

And lastly, Clinton went after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker -- who just
entered the presidential race today -- for his “mean-spirited, misguided
attacks” against workers.

“Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names by stomping
on workers’ rights,” she said.

Overall, Clinton attacked the trickle-down economics proposed by past
Republican presidents -- saying that “twice now” a Democratic president
(President Clinton and President Obama) “has had to come in and clean up
the mess left behind” -- and proposed her own, new plan aimed at both
“growth and fairness."

Clinton said her priority will be to boost middle-class wages, which she
said is the "defining economic challenge of our time."

In her remarks, Clinton laid out a series of proposals -- including tax
cuts for businesses and increasing the minimum wage -- for how she plans to
do it.

Here’s a list of what she proposed:

   - Increasing the minimum wage
   - Policies such as affordable child care and paid leave, focused on
   getting more women get into the work force

   - Tax cuts for small businesses
   - Tax reforms so that the wealthy “have to pay their fair share.”

   - Support for union workers and ending efforts to undermine worker
   bargaining power
   - Incentives for businesses to expand profit-sharing with employees
   - Education reform, including ways to improve schools, make college
   affordable and help Americans refinance their student debt
   - Comprehensive immigration reform (which Clinton called “another engine
   of strong growth”)
   - Investments in infrastructure, clean-energy programs, scientific and
   medical research, and net businesses investments like factories, machines
   and research labs
   - Capital gains tax reform to reward “longer term investments that
   create jobs, not just quick trades”
   - Wall Street reform and protection of “Dodd-Frank” laws

Notably, Clinton did not go into many specifics -- she did not specify by
how much she wants to raise the minimum wage, nor did she say what her tax
reform would entail. But her campaign says this speech simply laid out the
foundation of her plan –- and the overarching themes -- and that she will
roll out the details of the proposals in the coming weeks.

Towards the end of Clinton's remarks, a heckler called out over the crowd,
"Will you restore Glass-Steagall?" -- referring to the 1933 legislation
that limited the affiliation between banks and securities firms, and
provisions of which were repealed in 1999. Some critics have pointed to the
repeal as one of the contributing factors to the 2008 financial crisis.

Clinton did not respond and the man -- who said he was frustrated Clinton
did not take any questions -- was quickly escorted out by security.

*Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-pitches-plan-growth-fairness-economy-n391121>
// NBC News // Carrie Dann – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton offered her vision Monday of a "growth and fairness
economy," saying that her agenda would boost Americans' incomes and push
companies to share profits with their employees.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have
one without the other," she said during remarks at the New School in New
York City.

The 2016 Democratic candidate said that incomes have stalled even as
corporate profits have skyrocketed, creating inequality that is "a drag on
our entire economy."

"Wages need to rise to keep up with costs," she said. "Paychecks need to
grow. Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and
stay ahead."

She took an explicit shot at Republican rival Jeb Bush, directly
referencing his statement last week that Americans "need to work longer
hours."

"Well, he must not have met very many American workers," she said.
Referencing nurses and fast food workers with grueling schedules, she
added: "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

She also mentioned by name Republican candidates Sen. Marco Rubio, whose
tax plan she derided as a "budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy,"
and Gov. Scott Walker, whose fights against labor unions in Wisconsin she
branded as "mean-spirited and misguided attacks." Walker is slated to
formally announce his run later Monday in Wisconsin.

During her remarks, Clinton also called for companies to expand
profit-sharing with their employees, pledging to change the tax code to
incentivize such moves.

"Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's
success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees'
pockets. It's a win-win," she said.

And she promised to "break down barriers to joining the workforce -
especially for women."

The Democratic frontrunner did not explicitly mention progressive rivals
like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has won accolades from the party's
left wing for his criticisms of Wall Street and big banks.

But she vowed to go beyond the Obama-backed Dodd-Frank banking reforms to
"rein in excessive risk on Wall Street," and she called for prosecution of
"criminal behavior" of culpable individuals in the banking industry.

*In economic address, Hillary Clinton calls out ‘gig’ economy
<http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/13/in-economic-address-hillary-clinton-calls-out-gig-economy.html>
// CNBC // Kate Rogers – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton laid out her economic
agenda in New York City on Monday. She focused on ways to lift American
workers and called out the sharing economy as a potential factor in
dampened wage growth.

The sharing economy—bolstered by high-flying start-ups including Uber,
Airbnb and Lyft—allows individuals to share products and services like
offering homes and apartments for rent, or driving passengers to
destinations. The small tasks often are brokered through mobile smartphone
apps, and the platforms connect freelancers with available short-term gigs.

Amid an uneven economic recovery, many American workers are cobbling
together a patchwork of jobs. But freelance freedom and flexibility don't
come with traditional full-time benefits including health care or
retirement savings.

More lower-paying jobs since recession

"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing
a website ... even driving their own car. This on demand or so called 'gig'
economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but
it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a
good job will look like in the future," Clinton said.

She laid out her economic plan during an address at The New School in
Manhattan.

Read MoreMore retired Americans becoming Uber drivers

An estimated 53 million Americans—more than 1 in 3 workers—are freelancers,
according to a 2014 report by independent research firm Edelman Berland.
The study was commissioned by the Freelancers Union in partnership with
Elance-oDesk.

Separate data show recent lower-wage job gains outpacing higher-wage job
growth, according to the National Employment Law Project.

There are now 1.2 million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries
than there were prior to the Great Recession, according to NELP data. In
contrast, there are 2.3 million more jobs in lower-wage sectors than before
the recession.

Rise of the Uber driver

While older workers are participating in the sharing economy, the young,
tech freelancer is likely to become an important symbol during the
presidential election campaign.

"In 2008, it was all about 'Joe the Plumber.' In 2016, it will likely be
'Carl the Uber driver,'" said Jeremiah Owyang, analyst and founder of
Silicon Valley-based Crowd Companies, which focuses on the collaborative
economy.

Some workers are suing start-ups including Uber and Lyft to be classified
as employees, not independent contractors.

Clinton also vowed to ensure workers are being properly paid and protected.
"I'll crack down on bosses that exploit employees by misclassifying them as
contractors or even steal their wages," she told the crowd.

But others argue the "gig" economy offers workers an incredible amount of
flexibility.

If the jobs "meet people's needs for flexible employment and provide
learning real skills and pay decent wages, then they are certainly a
positive for the economy," said Paul Osterman, professor at the MIT Sloan
School. If the freelance jobs "result from misclassification to avoid
paying benefits or employment taxes, then they are an emerging problem and
a source of worsening job quality," Osterman said in an email to CNBC.

*Hillary Clinton shows she’s really a liberal on economics
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8951659/hillary-clinton-liberal-economics> //
Vox // Jonathan Allen – July 13, 2015 *

If there's one thing that frustrates liberal Democrats the most about
Hillary Clinton's politics, it's that she doesn't seem to share — or maybe
even get — the base's gut instincts. She's bad at explaining her
motivations in a way that connects with core Democrats.

But as she laid out her economic vision in a Monday speech that rejected
Republican theories without embracing hard-left policies, Clinton did
something that's been difficult for her in the past: She spoke to both the
head and the heart of the Democratic Party.

Clinton promised to prosecute financial fraudsters, defend and expand the
Affordable Care Act, and "fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided
attacks" on unions.

More broadly, Clinton succeeded in articulating a vision for reshaping the
American economy to promote growth by directing help to working- and
middle-class families. In classic Clintonian fashion, she drew her sharpest
contrasts with Republicans — calling out Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco
Rubio by name — while glossing over some of the differences on the
Democratic side of the national policy debate.

"It was both an intellectual and emotional appeal," said Jared Bernstein, a
liberal economist who served as an adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. He
praised her, in particular, for a comprehensive connection of policies
affecting middle-class Americans to economic growth, from collective
bargaining to profit sharing. "She covered every corner of the debate."

She didn't read a white paper on tax reform. How do I know whether she's
really liberal?

Clinton stayed at the 30,000-foot level for most of the speech, declining
to get into the nitty-gritty of how she would use executive power — or work
with Republicans in Congress — to implement her agenda.

What Clinton did articulate, though, is the set of fundamental concepts
guiding her campaign's economic agenda. Taken as a whole, that vision is
clearly left of center. Some of what she laid out sounded pretty
progressive — for example, creating incentives for companies to share
profits with their employees, increasing regulation of the financial
industry, and prosecuting the financial crimes of individuals at big
institutions. (Liberals have criticized President Obama and former Attorney
General Eric Holder for failing to win convictions on Wall Street and for
selling low in settlements with banks).

The broad strokes often aren't enough for many liberals. They worry that if
not nailed down, she'll eventually tack toward a "third way" like President
Bill Clinton. They want to be convinced that she's motivated by the same
instincts they are, and they want to know that the set of advisers around
her won't pull her in another direction.

Clinton's campaign released a set of advisers on the speech that includes
liberal economists Joseph Stiglitz and Alan Blinder, as well as Neera
Tanden, a former Clinton aide who is the head of the liberal think tank
Center for American Progress.

In its construction — in terms of both language and who played a hand in
writing it — Clinton's speech on Monday should have gone a long way toward
assuaging those concerns. It's not that she's ready to adopt Bernie
Sanders's platform. She'll never do that because she's simply not that far
left. But she's starting to talk about the theory behind her policy, and it
should comfort liberals because it matches up well with their heads and
hearts.

Clinton's big move: explaining her motivations

The most important thing Clinton did Monday is explain why she wants to
target government benefits to working- and middle-class Americans.

"The defining economic challenge of our time is clear," she said. "We must
raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class
life. We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up families
and lifts up our country."

There's no more core progressive belief than the idea that boosting the
lower and middle classes is how you spur sustainable economic growth.

And there are two reasons to think she would follow through on her plans.
First, we know presidents try to fulfill their campaign promises. Second,
Clinton has developed a policy process for her campaign that resembles that
of the White House, with Jake Sullivan, the former deputy chief of staff at
the State Department, playing the coordinating role. The vision and big
decisions are made at the top, but the constituent parts are put together
through the input of inside and outside advisers. That is, there are a lot
of fingerprints on the plan and a lot of stakeholders to be kept on board.

Clinton won praise from Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and chief economist at
the Roosevelt Institute, who was one of the scores of advisers who helped
build the foundation for the speech.

"Growth is not achieved by pulling a number out of thin air but by focusing
on and investing in our families and communities, ensuring Americans can
earn enough to afford a middle-class life, and making our financial markets
work for everyday Americans rather than the short-term interests of CEOs
and speculators," Stiglitz said. "Today Hillary Clinton began to offer the
kind of comprehensive approach we need to tackle the enormous economic
challenges we face, one that is squarely in line with what we have called
for at the Roosevelt Institute."

That's not to say Clinton went far enough to win ringing endorsements from
everyone on the left — or on all of topics she raised.

Clinton talked about trade, but refused to pick a spot on the Democratic
spectrum.

"We do need to set a high bar for trade agreements," she said, evading the
question of whether she will back the controversial Trans-Pacific
Partnership pact. "We should support them if they create jobs, raise wages,
and advance our national security. And we should be prepared to walk away
if they don’t."

Ultimately, it will matter less where Clinton would be rated on a
progressive's scorecard than whether she can convince liberals that they
should be excited — or at least comfortable — with where she wants to take
the country and why.

The other key to the speech was her contrast with Republicans

Politicians like to say that elections are about choices. On Monday,
Clinton framed her vision as the antithesis of Republican economic theory.
She ripped Bush for saying American workers should work "longer hours" —
though he may have meant moving from part-time to full-time employment —
upbraided Rubio for a tax plan that would help millionaires, and said
union-busting efforts by Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans are
"mean-spirited" and "misguided."

More important than the individual digs, which served to illustrate her
larger point, was Clinton's basic attack on GOP economics.

"For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those
at the top — by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write
their own rules — it will trickle down, it will trickle down to everyone
else," Clinton said. "Yet every time they have a chance to try that
approach, it explodes the national debt, concentrates wealth even more, and
does practically nothing to help hard-working Americans."

Even in reaching out to progressives, Clinton all but said any flavor of
Democrat is better than a Republican.

"Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic president has had to come in
and clean up the mess," she said. "I think the results speak for
themselves.tec

*Hillary Clinton just embraced one of Elizabeth Warren’s main criticisms of
Obama <http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8949747/clinton-bank-prosecution> //
Vox // Matthew Yglesias – July 13, 2015 *

If she becomes president, Hillary Clinton will confront the challenge that
Republicans will almost certainly still control Congress. In practice, this
means her scope for dramatic new policy achievements is likely to be
limited. And it's why the remarks she made Monday morning on prosecuting
financial crime are some of the most important words she's spoken thus far
in the campaign.

Appointing prosecutors and regulators with a mandate to be tougher than
those the Obama administration has put in office is something that she can
actually do.

This speaks to one of liberals' biggest complaints with Eric Holder and the
Obama Justice Department — an endless parade of fines with no serious
consequences for individual wrongdoing. Elizabeth Warren, among others, has
been banging this drum for years without securing any real change in the
administration's approach:

"I would have thought that given the things the Department of Justice has
been saying about how aggressive they want to get about corporate crime — I
would expect to see more corporations prosecuted," Brandon L. Garrett,
professor at University of Virginia Law School and author of Too Big To
Jail, told Vox last November. "Instead, those numbers have been declining.
And I would expect to see more individuals prosecuted in these cases, and
very few individuals are prosecuted."

There are significant structural barriers to successful high-level
white-collar criminal prosecutions, but whether to at least try is more or
less up to the discretion of any given administration.

If a hypothetical future Clinton administration wants to go after more
individuals when regulators catch banks breaking the rules, congressional
Republicans can't really stop them. At the same time, in the universe of
possible ways to get to Obama's left this seems like a pretty safe bet.
Wall Street banks are happy to complain about excessive red tape, but no
CEO is going to stand up and publicly say that he should be immune from
prosecution if his bank is caught laundering money.

Meanwhile, to bank foes the question will be whether Clinton means it.
Similar promises to get tough have been made before, only to leave
reformers feeling burned by a lack of follow-up, with Obama's second SEC
Chair Mary Jo White only the most recent example. Clinton doesn't bear any
responsibility for the Obama administration's tendency to go back and forth
on the desired severity of enforcement actions, but to activists focused on
the issue there is a trust gap. But skeptics should take some succor from
the fact that Clinton's practical scope for accomplishment is likely to be
sharply constrained. The stakes in 2016 are high, but realistically Clinton
is going to want to be remembered as something more than a conservator of
the Obama agenda. Demanding tough prosecutions of financial malefactors is
a way of leaving a mark that Clinton can actually deliver on.

*Hillary Clinton to Jeb Bush: American workers “don’t need a lecture, they
need a raise”
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8948979/hillary-clinton-lecture-raise> // Vox
// Jonathan Allen – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton ripped into top-tier Republican rivals Jeb Bush, Marco
Rubio, and Scott Walker — but not the insurgent Donald Trump — in the midst
of an economic policy speech Monday.

On Jeb Bush and whether workers need to work longer hours

Clinton's first name-check was Bush. Last week, Bush said that Americans
"need to work longer hours" to boost the economy. That brought full gaffe
condemnation from Democrats — and some pundits — leaving Bush defenders to
assert that he meant it in the context of part-time laborers having more
full-time employment opportunities. Clinton wasn't buying any of it.

"He must not have met very many American workers," she said. "They don’t
need a lecture. They need a raise."

On Marco Rubio's tax cuts for the rich

A Tax Policy Center analysis of a version of Rubio's tax plan found that
there would be minimal benefit to low-income families, while those making
$3.3 million or more would see an average tax cut of about $240,000.
Clinton urged listeners to "take a good look" at GOP tax plans, starting
with Rubio's.

"That’s a sure budget-busting giveaway to the super-wealthy," she said.

On Scott Walker's crusade against unions

Clinton saved her harshest line of attack for the newest official
candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who rose to national prominence by
busting unions in his home state.

"Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names stomping on
workers' rights," Clinton said. "I will fight back against these
mean-spirited, misguided attacks."

The one she left alone: Donald Trump

Clinton drew an implicit contrast with Donald Trump, who has surged into a
virtual tie with Bush atop the Republican field by whipping up fervor
against unauthorized immigrants. "I know it’s not always how we think about
this, but another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive
immigration reform," she said.

But she didn't go after The Donald by name. That's probably because his
rise is exposing rifts within the Republican Party. One iron law of
politics: Don't get in the way when the other party is imploding.

Update: Allie Brandenburger, a spokesperson for Bush, sent in her response
to Clinton's speech.

"Hillary Clinton is proposing the same failed policies we have seen in the
Obama economy, where the typical American household’s income has declined
and it's harder for businesses to hire and the middle class to achieve
rising incomes.

"Americans want to work and want the opportunity to achieve earned success
for their families, but Secretary Clinton’s antiquated proposals protect
the special interests that want to stifle American ingenuity and 21st
Century companies like Uber that are creating jobs. Governor Bush believes
harnessing innovation and fostering technology can help us grow at 4
percent once again.”

*Hillary Clinton’s new paleo-liberalism
<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8940221/neo-paleo-liberalism> // VOX //
Matthew Yglesia – July 13, 2015*

Hillary Clinton's record in office suggests that she is more liberal than
either her husband or Barack Obama, and in a Monday speech outlining her
economic vision she is set to confirm that.

Background briefing documents provided by her campaign to journalists in
advance of the speech suggest she's making an effort to avoid a hard break
with the previous two Democratic presidents, pointing out instead that
times have changed since 1992 or since the circumstances of the 2008
economic crisis.

But the documents nonetheless hint at a fundamental philosophical
difference: Clinton is less inclined to favor a market-oriented approach
than a left-wing approach, a real change from the past quarter century of
Democratic Party economic policymaking.

What we won't get on Monday is much policy detail to flesh out how this
difference might look in practice. And many left-wing interest group
leaders and intellectuals to whom this new way of thinking has been
previewed have expressed skepticism to me about its sincerity. But history
suggests that presidents generally try to implement the agenda they have
promised, so it's worth paying attention.

The great divide in left-of-center economics

The biggest divide in American economic policy is, of course, the one that
separates the Republican approach from the Democratic one. But within the
left-of-center camp there is a long-running conceptual dispute between what
you might call neoliberalism and paleo-liberalism.

The keys to the neoliberal approach that dominated both the Clinton and
Obama administrations are, roughly:

The main way the government can impact the pre-tax distribution of income
is by providing high-quality education to as many people as possible.

Financial markets should be regulated to guard against catastrophe, but
also should take a leading role in driving investment decisions across the
private sector.

To the extent that the education path fails to generate a satisfactory
distribution of economic resources, progressive taxes should fund
redistributive programs to produce a better outcome.

The paleo-liberal approach denies most of this, harkening back to an era in
which government regulation and labor unions played a more direct role in
compressing the pre-tax distribution of labor income and the financial
sector was deliberately regulated in a heavy-handed way rather than allowed
to lead the economy.

Neither Clinton nor Obama ever adhered purely to the neoliberal philosophy
(both endorsed minimum wage hikes, for example, and saw a large
constructive role for the government in guiding the health care sector) but
it has been a dominant strand in both administrations' thinking.

The new paleo-liberalism

The philosophy Clinton will outline is essentially a modern-day revival of
the old paleoliberal side of this fight. The ideas and people referenced on
background clearly reflect the influence of a new set of institutions that
have arisen in the 21st century that all aim to push against the hegemony
of neoliberal ideas. Key focus points for this paleoliberal revival include
the Washington Center on Equitable Growth that Clinton's campaign chair
John Podesta founded in 2013 (and where, full disclosure, my wife used to
work), the Roosevelt Institute, and George Soros's Institute for New
Economic Thinking.

These groups promote concepts that we can expect to see Clinton embrace but
that reverse the neoliberal formula of her husband's administration:

The government should take an active role in writing economic rules that
promote high wages, rather than relying on taxes and transfer payments.

Financial markets do a poor job of guiding private sector investment (she
will frame this as a critique of short-term thinking).

Increasing educational attainment is an inadequate strategy for curbing
inequality.

Clinton intends to bring this all together under the idea that high levels
of inequality reduce the rate of economic growth rather than being an
inevitable result of growth-friendly policies, technology, and
globalization.

Conceptually, this sets Clinton up for a much more vigorous regulatory
approach than either the Obama or (especially) Clinton administrations
took. One that is much less worried that rules that reduce business profits
will also reduce investment and growth, and one that is much friendlier to
the idea that strong labor unions are not only compatible with but arguably
necessary for rapid economic growth.

What does it mean?

Politics is more about concrete policy choices than abstract philosophy,
and thus far we've seen relatively little indication of how Clinton would
deliver on these ideas in a concrete way that differs from her predecessors.

Joining the Congressional Democratic backlash against the Trans-Pacific
Partnership would have been one way to do that, but it's a step she rather
pointedly declined to take. Nor has she embraced liberals' call to expand
Social Security and she's been somewhat cagey about whether or not she
endorses the movement for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. She certainly hasn't
joined Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley in calling for
a break up of Wall Street's biggest banks.

Many veterans of the intra-Democratic clash on economic policy doubt the
sincerity of Clinton's moves to join their camp. Ironically, the fact that
leading neoliberals like Larry Summers are now singing from a more
paleo-liberal songbook gives the old-time paleoliberals heartburn. They see
a ploy by their old rivals to bend with the wind rather than breaking so as
to retain control over the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
Clinton's team is explicitly intending to stay abstract initially. Rather
than a laundry-list of policy initiatives, they want to paint a broad
vision that they then fill out over time. Only when that happens will we
really get a sense of how much Clinton intends a break with the past.

*Hillary Clinton dodges left and jabs right
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-jeb-rubio-sanders/index.html>
// CNN // Jeff Zeleny and Eric Bradner – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton squarely took aim at her biggest rivals on Monday during
the first policy speech of her campaign, directly calling them by name as
she strives to get Democrats fired up about her candidacy.

The names she uttered spoke volumes: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker.

For all the talk about the need to protect her left flank, she treated the
spark of Bernie Sanders like little more than a summer firefly that can be
ignored or swatted away.

In her second bid for the presidency, Clinton may not be inspiring the
passion of the crowds turning out for Sanders. But she made clear on Monday
that she believes the best way to rally Democrats to her side in the
primary fight is to present herself as the toughest, most electable
candidate for the general election, casting back to her husband's economy
in order to project forward to her own.

"Under President Clinton," she said, referring to him. "I like the sound of
that," she added, smiling at the thought of being in the White House again.

The confidence of her words illustrates that she is comfortable playing the
long game and has no intention of being spooked or distracted by any
Democratic who are slow to jump on the bandwagon.

Whether it's a risky strategy to underestimate her Democratic opponents
won't be known until the winter, when she faces the voters of Iowa and New
Hampshire. But for now, at least, Clinton is looking far beyond those early
contests to a bigger fight.

Framing 2016 as Democrat vs. Republican

She accused Bush, the former Florida governor, of being out of touch with
American workers. She sought to use his own words against him when he said
last week in New Hampshire that "people need to work longer hours."

"Well, he must not have met very many American workers," Clinton said.
"They don't need a lecture -- they need a raise."

Before she even finished her speech at the New School in Manhattan, Bush
had already opened a fundraising drive with her remarks. His aides said she
was distorting his words, when he was simply saying there were not enough
full-time job opportunities for workers.

While Clinton's policy address was substantive, it was also heavily laced
with familiar economic arguments that have framed the Democratic vs.
Republican fight for years. She hedged her bets, clearly not sure which
Republican candidate would emerge from their crowded primary fight.

She blasted a tax proposal from Rubio, the Florida senator, and said it
would cut taxes for families making $3 million a year.

"Well that's a sure budget-busting give-away to the super-wealthy," Clinton
said. "And that's the kind of bad economics you're likely to get from any
of the candidates on the other side."

And she assailed Walker as "mean-spirited" and "misguided" for his
successful effort to curtain unions' rights in Wisconsin, rushing to the
defense of Democrats' labor base -- tying its decline to growing
inequality, particularly among men.

"Republicans' governors like Scott Walker have made their names stomping on
workers' rights," Clinton said. "And practically all the Republican
candidates hope to do the same as President."

A new look at policy proposals

The Clinton speech, which came nearly three months to the day since she
declared her candidacy, offered one of the most expansive looks yet at her
policy proposals.

It was hardly a fiery stemwinder, but her 45-minute address laid the
groundwork for themes she will turn back to again and again in her campaign
as she tries to present herself as a fighter for the middle class. It also
served as a benchmark for whether she can get through her primary fight
without directly drawing distinctions with her Democratic rivals, namely
Sanders, who has been strongly embraced by the progressive movement.

Clinton was dodging the left, offering up what liberals have ached to hear
from a presidential candidate without delving into details or making firm
commitments, while she jabbed the right.

She offered scolding words for Wall Street, saying she would criminally
prosecute financial firms and individuals for any wrongdoing.

The comment struck liberal groups -- particularly several that had tried to
recruit firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the race -- because it's
further than President Barack Obama's administration was willing to go in
the wake of the 2008 economic downturn.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who is a darling of the
left and has met with Clinton to talk policy, said her speech shows she
understands the need to "fundamentally rewrite the rules" to ensure that
"our financial markets work for everyday Americans rather than the
short-term interests of CEOs and speculators."

Clinton didn't offer the harsh attacks on corporate America that Sanders
has served up for the left, but she did condemn Republicans for claiming
they could achieve substantial economic growth rates without also offering
policies that would direct that new income toward the middle class.

"Today, as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer-term challenges come
into focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,"
Clinton said. "You can't have one without the other."

As she stood on a stage, flanked by a row of flags, Clinton sent a signal
that she would rely on her experience -- and that of the last two
Democratic presidential administrations -- but that she would also have to
charter her own forward-looking course.

"We're not going to find all the answers we need today in the playbooks of
the past," Clinton said. "Today is not 1993 or 2009. We need solutions for
the big challenges we face now."

*Hillary Clinton's economic pitch: Americans 'need a raise'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/12/politics/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech/>
// CNN // Eric Bradner – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton pledged to rein in out-of-control financial institutions on
Monday as she detailed an economic vision that she said would achieve the
"defining economic challenge of our life" of lifting middle-class wages.

The Democratic front-runner lambasted a marketplace she said is too
obsessed with second-to-second stock trading and quarterly earnings
reports, at the expense of long-term growth and stability.

Clinton even took a veiled shot at President Barack Obama's administration
for failing to prosecute individuals for banking crimes in the wake of the
2008 economic downturn.

She accused hedge funds and high-frequency traders of "criminal behavior,"
and promised to "prosecute individuals as well as firms" when they break
the law -- which liberals have long clamored for, but the Obama
administration largely didn't do. She also said she'd seek to expand on the
2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law designed to prevent future
economic crises.

"'Too big to fail' is still too big a problem," Clinton said.

Held at The New School, a university in lower Manhattan, the event was
billed as Clinton's first major economic policy speech. She touched a long
list of items she'll expound on in additional events over the summer, and
included several sections -- including the attack on Wall Street -- that
could help blunt the progressive dissatisfaction demonstrated in Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders' rapid rise up the Democratic primary polls.

But Clinton didn't mention Sanders at all -- and instead, she went after
her potential Republican rivals.

She laced the speech with assaults on three leading GOP presidential
candidates: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for his comment that some
Americans should work more hours; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for a tax plan
she said would benefit only the wealthy; and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
for battling with labor unions.

Those attacks signaled that Clinton believes her way to winning the
Democratic nomination is by proving she's best able to take on Bush and
other top Republicans in a general election, rather than locking horns with
primary challengers.

"For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those
at the top by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their
own rules, it will trickle down -- it will trickle down to everyone else,"
Clinton said.

Her attack on Bush was the sharpest. Clinton pointed to his comment that
some Americans who work in a part-time economy need to take on more hours
and said: "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

She said two Democratic presidents before -- Obama and Bill Clinton -- have
been charged with rescuing an economy that GOP presidents left in shambles.

She praised Obama for bailing out the automotive industry and expanding
access to health insurance. And she joked about her husband's title, while
lauding his record.

"Under President Clinton -- I like the sound of that -- America saw the
longest peace-time expansion in our history," Clinton said. "Nearly 23
million jobs, a balanced budget and a surplus for the future. And most
importantly, incomes rose across the board, not just for those already at
the top."

Clinton's speech was the product of more than 200 meetings between her
policy team and a roster of outside advisers that includes economists like
Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz. Clinton took many of the meetings
herself, aides said.

Drawing on decades of research, Clinton said the evolution of the "gig
economy" -- represented by companies like the ride-sharing Uber and housing
renter Airbnb, which she made opaque references to without mentioning by
name -- and said it has undercut the stability and security that jobs have
traditionally offered.

Clinton said she favors tax reforms that would give companies incentives to
share their profits with employees. She pitched an American infrastructure
bank, as well as a renewed focus on clean energy and tax relief for small
businesses. And she previewed her upcoming policy pitches on child care,
paid sick leave and paid family leave.

"Many of these proposals are time-tested and more than a little
battle-scarred," she said.

Clinton is attemping to counter what she sees as a conservative-driven
narrative in American politics that intervening in the economy on behalf of
the middle class stymies job growth.

"That's really not what the weight of economic evidence shows," said
Heather Boushey, who has consulted with Clinton's campaign and is the
executive director and chief economist at the Washington Center for
Equitable Growth. "You can't accept a trade-off anymore that doesn't seem
to hold water."

Boushey said Clinton is "laying out an agenda that looks at what inequality
means for families up and down the income distribution, what we can do to
fix it, and it's really exciting to see a politician take up a very serious
set of research ideas and bring them into the public debate."

Her policy team is headed by Jake Sullivan, a former top aide to Clinton at
the State Department and U.S. negotiator in the Iran nuclear talks, as well
as Ann O'Leary and Maya Harris, who both worked at the left-leaning Center
for American Progress.

Outside advisers have included a host of liberal economists, former
government officials and more. Among them are the Noble Prize-winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz, top Obama economic policy aides Gene Sperling,
Christina Romer, David Kamin and Alan Krueger.

Neera Tanden, a top 2008 Clinton campaign aide and now president of the
Center for American Progress, was among the outside advisers, as were
former Bill Clinton economist Alan Blinder, and economists Jacob Hacker,
Ronnie Chatterji and Boushey.

*Clinton to urge firms to expand profit-sharing with workers, in economic
address
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/13/clinton-to-urge-firms-to-expand-profit-sharing-with-workers-in-economic-address/>
// Fox – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in what is billed as a
major economic address, plans Monday to urge companies to expand
profit-sharing with employees as part of an agenda aimed at boosting
middle-class wages.

Clinton is laying out her economic plans after weeks of staying coy on the
subject. Though it's unclear whether she'll call for tax increases, a
Clinton campaign official said she will urge companies to expand
profit-sharing of corporate earnings, pledging changes in the tax code to
encourage this. She describes the idea as a "win-win."

"Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce," Clinton said in prepared remarks. "... That
will be good for workers and good for business. Studies show profit-sharing
that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity
and put money directly into employees' pockets."

In laying out an economic agenda focused on middle-class earnings, Clinton
may also be seeking to recapture the populist energy in the Democratic
electorate, which lately has been gravitating toward Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders, right now Clinton's biggest challenger.

Clinton declined in a CNN interview earlier this week to say whether she
would raise taxes on big corporations or the country's highest
wage-earners, as Sanders has proposed.

"I think we have to grow the economy faster and fairer," she said. "So we
have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and
the long term. ... then, I'll look forward to the debate."

While top-tier Republican candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has
called for an annual growth rate of 4 percent, Clinton will assert that the
nation's economy should not be judged by a specific growth figure but
rather by how much income increases for middle-class households.

"For a typical working American, their income has not been rising anywhere
near as fast as it should be rising, and that is the challenge we face,"
said David Kamin, a New York University law professor who has advised
Clinton's campaign. "It's not a new problem, and it's going to take a
holistic vision."

The Clinton campaign said the former first lady and New York senator in her
speech at The New School, a university in New York City, will point to
economic progress during her husband's two terms in the 1990s and more
recently under President Obama.

But she will aim to identify ways of improving upon the uneven nature of
the nation's recovery since the Great Recession, bolstering wages even as
the unemployment rate has fallen to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent.

Clinton is also expected to begin outlining a series of specific economic
proposals this summer on issues like wage growth, college affordability,
corporate accountability and paid leave.

In Clinton's approach to the economy, more Americans would share in the
prosperity and avoid the boom-and-bust cycles of Wall Street that have led
to economic turbulence of the past decade.

Clinton, who is seeking to become the nation's first female president, is
also expected to address ways of making it easier for women to join the
workforce.

Clinton will attempt to meet the demands of liberals within her own party
who are wary of her willingness to regulate Wall Street while inspiring
confidence among a larger electorate who will judge her policies if she
wins the Democratic nomination.

*Hillary Clinton's 'new' economic agenda shouldn't fool anyone. It's just
recycled rhetoric that hasn't worked
<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/13/hillary-clintons-new-economic-agenda-really-just-recycled-ideas-from-team-obama.html>
// Fox // Stephen Moore – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton will attempt to reinvent herself for the umpteenth time on
Monday‎ when she releases her "new" economic agenda for the working class.
Except that from what the Clinton team released over the weekend this is
not much more than the leftovers from Obamanomics -- and that hasn't worked
out so well for middle America.

Let's see: she wants more infrastructure spending, higher taxes on the
foreign earnings of U.S. Corporations and hedge fund managers, a higher
minimum wage, new rules to make it easier to form unions ( card check),
more child care subsidies, expanded paid medical leave for workers, and
renewable energy subsidies.

Sound familiar? It's more taxes, more regulatory burdens on employers, the
green agenda, more government spending paid for with debt. One looks at the
list of leftist wish list priorities from yesteryear and wonders: Hillary,
is this thin grool really all you got?

There aren't even hints of her husband's New Democrat agenda that generated
growth and reform of government. The free trade, welfare reform, balanced
budget, middle class tax cuts, sound money New Democrat agenda has vanished.

Sadly, Ms. Clinton is slamming the door on the successful centrist agenda
of her husband and perhaps for good. Why? Because her political challenger
Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is pulling
Hillary and the party in her direction. ‎What's next from Hillary, a call
for 70 percent tax rates?

Here's Hillary's unavoidable dilemma: ‎her theme is to advance economic
policies that benefit "everyday Americans." But the leftist Obamanomics 2.0
agenda she will announce Monday has been tried for six and a half years
now.  She says the key to economic progress is not the 4 percent growth
that Jeb Bush and other Republicans are pushing, but middle class raises.
But under Obama the middle class has gotten pummeled. Middle class
household incomes are lower today adjusted for inflation than when the
recovery started.  ‎Inequality has risen, not fallen under these
redistribution policies.

Meanwhile, every poll shows the middle class is angry and anxious about the
pint-sized economic recovery and the prospects for achieving the American
Dream for their children. Hillary's betting that she can win on an agenda
of more of the same when the nation is hungry for a new direction.

Pitifully,  Hillary won't -- or politically can't -- advance a genuine
agenda of new ideas inside today's demented Democratic party dominated by
the progressive left.  They won't let her move in a centrist direction.  So
much for hope and change.

So with Hillary's cupboard is bare when it comes to fixing the economy,
Republicans need to respond to the let's vast policy wasteland with a
robust platform of reforms to government -- health care, taxes,
entitlements, the regulatory state, the IRS, 21st century America-first
energy, and a war against waste and Washington incompetence.  If they do,
they have a good shot of winning back the White House in 2016.

*Hillary Clinton unveils her vision for the economy
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-unveils-her-vision-for-the-economy/>
// CBS // Rebecca Kaplan and Steve Chaggaris – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton unveiled her vision for the economy Monday, placing her
focus squarely on boosting the middle class through a three-part plan to
create jobs, reduce income inequality and hold financial institutions more
accountable.

"Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest
middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if
you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead," she said
in a speech at the New School, a progressive university in New York City.
"But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to
make it strong again."

Clinton, in the first major economic policy speech of her campaign,
proposed expanding the workforce, especially for women, through both
private and public investments, better benefits and lower healthcare costs
for workers, and a reformed, more balanced tax code. Her goal, she said,
was to create more "pathways" into the middle class.

"The defining challenge of our time is clear," she said. "We must raise
incomes for hard working Americans so they can afford a middle class life."

Clinton drew a stark comparison with her counterparts on the Republican
side of the race. She took aim first at Jeb Bush, who Clinton pounced on
last week for saying that "people need to work longer hours" in an
interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.

"Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the
teacher who in that classroom or the trucker who drives all night," she
said. "They do not need a lecture, they need a raise."

But Bush was not talking about the work ethic of Americans. In a press
conference with reporters after a town hall in Hudson, New Hampshire, he
said that his words had been "taken out of context" and that he was
referring to the need for people to have the opportunity for full-time work.

John Dickerson’s field notes: When the race ends, will political dynasties
become allies?

"If we're going to grow the economy people need to stop being part-time
workers, they need to have access to greater opportunities to work," Bush
said.

Clinton went on to attack by name Sen. Marco Rubio on his tax reform plan,
calling it "bad economics" to cut taxes for the wealthy, and Gov. Scott
Walker, whom she said has "made [his] name stomping on workers' rights."
Walker will formally enter the race Monday night in Waukesha, Wisconsin,
the site of his 2012 recall election victory.

Five things to know about Scott Walker

"I will fight back against these mean-spirited attacks," she said.

Though Clinton made Republicans her main foil as she laid out her plans,
she also differentiated herself from Bernie Sanders, the independent
senator from Vermont who has recently been gaining on her in the polls.
Sanders' arguments for promoting economic fairness -- in part by reducing
the amount of wealth going to the richest Americans -- are helping him to
draw crowds numbering in the thousands at his campaign rallies.

Sanders' definition of the "defining challenge" is different from
Clinton's. He uses the phrase to describe the wealth gap between poor and
working Americans and the wealthy and said in an interview with the
Washington Post that he would sacrifice economic growth in favor of
redistribution. Though narrowing that gap is part of the plan she described
Monday, Clinton distinguished herself from Sanders by emphasizing that the
middle class must rise along with corporate profits and executive
compensation.

States where minimum wage covers the rent

Clinton proposed measures like raising the minimum wage and investing in an
infrastructure bank to create jobs, both which Sanders also supports, but
also talked about immigration as an "engine of strong growth" and called on
companies to expand profit-sharing programs. And while Sanders has called
definitively for a breakup of the big banks, Clinton introduced a more
nuanced plan to regulate the financial industry.

"We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank," she said. "Too-big-to-fail is still too
big of a problem."

Clinton said major financial institutions today are still "too complex" and
that a "shadow banking system" of hedge funds and high frequency trading is
creating new threats to American consumers.

"While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases, admitted
guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off
with limited consequences or none at all," she said. "This is wrong and
under my watch, it will change."

Clinton laid the groundwork for a separate policy speech on Wall Street
reform, as well as a series of more specific announcements in the coming
weeks on other economic policies like wage growth, college affordability
and paid leave. Clinton will travel to New Hampshire later this week, where
she is expected to talk more about incentives to encourage corporate
profit-sharing.

*Hillary Clinton Focuses On Middle-Class Wages In Sweeping Economic Policy
Speech
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-2016-_n_7784722.html>
// HuffPo // Samantha Lachman – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton focused on the problem of stagnant middle-class wages on
Monday in the first major economic policy speech of her presidential
campaign.

In sweeping remarks at the progressive New School in New York City, the
Democratic candidate said that higher wages are driven by strong, fair and
long-term growth, offering policy proposals that fit into each of those
three categories. Clinton praised the policies pursued by President Barack
Obama, but suggested that more needs to be done to help middle-class
families. Her message echoed themes espoused by Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.), who has made her mark on the Democratic Party by arguing that
the economy is rigged against the middle class.

Clinton's speech also name-checked three of the leading Republican
presidential hopefuls -- former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio -- and criticized their economic
philosophies.

At the beginning of her address, Clinton suggested that the economy is "not
delivering the way that it should" for the middle class.

"It still seems to most Americans that I have spoken with that it is
stacked for those at the top," Clinton said, criticizing the concept of
trickle-down economics for concentrating wealth at the top while leaving
middle- and lower-income Americans with less.

"Twice now a Democratic president has had to come in and clean up the mess
left behind," she said, praising the economic records of her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, and Obama. "We have to build a growth and
fairness economy -- you can't have one without the other."

Though Clinton lauded Obama for saving the automobile industry, proposing
new rules for overtime pay and passing the Dodd-Frank and Affordable Care
Acts, the crux of the speech was that other policies that could further
boost paychecks have yet to be enacted.

"The defining economic challenge of our time is clear: We must raise
incomes for hardworking Americans so they can afford a middle-class life,"
Clinton said. "We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up
families and lifts up our country."

Progressives have criticized the former secretary of state for not coming
out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership being pushed by the Obama
administration. While Monday's speech did not add to the remarks Clinton
has already made on the subject, she did say that the expansion in global
trade has hollowed out America's manufacturing industry. She added that the
United States needs to "set a high bar for trade agreements" but also "be
prepared to walk away" if the agreements don't meet the administration's
standards.

The speech also called out large corporations for focusing on
"short-termism" rather than long-term investments. While Clinton talked
about the public investments she'd make -- in infrastructure, faster
broadband networks, renewable energy, and scientific and medical research
-- she also said corporations could do more on their end.

"Many business leaders see this. They’ve talked to me about. One has called
it the problem of 'quarterly capitalism,'" she said. "They say everything’s
focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price. The
result is too little attention on the sources of long-term growth: research
and development, physical capital, and talent."

Clinton said she'd support an apprenticeship tax credit as an incentive for
companies to hire and train new workers.

“I’m not talking about charity – I’m talking about clear-eyed capitalism,"
she explained. "Many companies have prospered by improving wages and
training their workers that then yield higher productivity, better service,
and larger profits ... Workers are assets. Investing in them pays off.
Higher wages pay off. And training pays off."

Clinton decried the decline in women's labor force participation compared
to other developed nations, and said she'd work to reduce barriers to women
entering the workforce by fighting for affordable childcare, equal pay for
equal work and paid leave.

"These challenges have been dismissed as ‘women’s issues’ -- that day is
over," Clinton said.

In the section dedicated to "fair growth," Clinton pledged to defend "and
enhance" Social Security and to protect Obama's health care law while
working to reduce out-of-pocket costs. She also alluded to companies like
Uber, saying she'd crack down on businesses that classify their workers as
independent contractors in order to avoid providing benefits.

"This 'on demand' or so-called 'gig economy' is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation but it’s also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future," she said.

Clinton took the opportunity to criticize Bush, who said last week that
Americans need to work longer hours, by saying that Americans need a raise
rather than a lecture. (Bush later said that he had really been talking
about involuntary part-time workers.) She also called Rubio's economic
proposals a "budget-busting giveaway to the super-wealthy."

But she reserved even more condemnation for Walker's fights against unions
in Wisconsin, suggesting that Republican governors like him had made their
name "stomping on workers' rights."

"It’s time to stand up to efforts across our country to undermine worker
bargaining power, which has been proven again and again to drive up wages,"
Clinton said. "I will fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided
attacks."

Addressing the issue of financial regulation, Clinton said "we have to go
beyond Dodd-Frank" to impose additional protections on high-risk trading
and hedge funds, while getting more serious about accountability for those
institutions on Wall Street that break the law.

Clinton's comments about financial institutions appeared to target
progressive voters who may worry that her economic policies would resemble
the deregulatory push undertaken by her husband in the 1990s. The proposals
she outlined also aimed to defend her left flank against her two leading
Democratic primary challengers, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

But the O'Malley campaign insists that its proposals are more developed
than Clinton's.

“Rebuilding the American Dream will take more than vague promises," said
Lis Smith, O’Malley's deputy campaign manager, in a statement following
Clinton's speech. "That’s why Governor O’Malley has set bold, progressive,
and specific goals to make our economy work for more Americans."

In a lighter moment on Monday, Clinton said she's guessed that her
granddaughter Charlotte's first word will be "enough" because she's been
read to incessantly. The quip came while Clinton was emphasizing that she'd
press for universal pre-school and support other early childhood education
efforts.

And in a tease of a proposal she said she'd develop more in a New Hampshire
campaign stop Thursday, Clinton said that she'd back company
profit-sharing, calling the proposal a "win-win" for employers and
employees.

"Hardworking Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce," she explained. "So I will propose ways to
encourage companies to share profits with their employees. That will be
good for workers and good for business. Studies show profit-sharing that
gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and
put money directly into employees' pockets."

*Hillary Clinton: Wage Growth Is The “Defining” Economic Problem Today
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-wage-growth-is-the-defining-economic-problem#.jn8J3lbmp>
// BuzzFeed // Ruby Cramer – July 13, 2015 *

In a wide-ranging speech on the economy — the first of her campaign —
Hillary Clinton cast wage stagnation as the “defining” challenge for
America’s next president, and outlined as the solution an extensive,
diverse set of proposals to encourage “growth and fairness,” raise the
minimum wage, cut taxes for the middle-class, lift them on the wealthy, and
strengthen working families by implementing policies for paid leave, equal
pay for women, and earned sick days.

“We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so that they can afford a
middle class life,” Clinton said. Lifting wages, she told the crowd, will
be “my mission from my first day as president to the last.”

Clinton, now three months into the race for the Democratic nomination,
spoke for about an hour on Monday at the New School in New York City on a
broad array of topics, promising to deliver more specific proposals in the
coming weeks.

She will, for instance, make more detailed remarks on her ideas for tax
code simplification, college affordability, profit-sharing, and paid leave.

About 200 people attended the speech. A mix of surrogates, supporters, and
donors, could also be spotted throughout the auditorium, including Van
Jones, the pundit and liberal advocate, and Tom Nides, the Morgan Stanley
executive and former State Department official. (The campaign’s finance
director, Dennis Cheng, also greeted guests in the lobby before the speech
began.)

The speech Monday was put together following a months-long period of
outreach to more than 200 domestic policy experts, according to the
campaign. Outside advisers included Neera Tanden, the head of the Center
for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the
campaign, as well as former administration advisers such as Gene Sperling
and Alan Blinder.

Clinton touched on some topics more broadly than others: One of her more
oblique references was to the so-called “gig economy,” and the rise of
companies like Uber, which has embodied a long-term shift toward freelance
and contract work.

The industry, she acknowledged, has created “exciting opportunities” and
unleashed “innovation.” But Clinton also said the companies have raised
“hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look
like.”

She concluded that these and other “technological advances” influencing the
economy were not “going away” anytime soon. “But they don’t determine our
destiny,” Clinton said. “The choices we make as a nation matter.”

The speech on Monday, details aside, was framed as a sweeping roadmap for
Clinton’s economic vision and an overview of her differences with
Republicans, three of whom she mentioned by name: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio,
and Scott Walker.

“For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those
at the top,” Clinton said, “it will trickle down to everyone else. Yet
every time they have a chance to try that approach, it explodes the
national debt, concentrates wealth even more and does practically nothing
to help hard-working Americas.”

Her proposals did not differ drastically with those already outlined by
Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Bernie Sanders, the
U.S. senator from Vermont — two Democratic competitors who have made tough
rhetoric on Wall Street and income inequality the central piece of their
campaigns.

Her administration, Clinton said, would appoint regulators who believe “too
big to fail is still too big a problem.” In a comment that was seen as a
contrast with a more passive approach by President Obama, Clinton promised
to “prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other
wrongdoing.”

She added that problems of inequality “are not limited to the big banks
that get all the headlines,” describing a “shadow banking system” of hedge
funds, high-frequency traders, and other new entities that “see little
oversight at all.”

Clinton received an initial positive response to the speech from
progressive groups that have cast Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as
a liberal benchmark.

Democracy for America — a group that until earlier this summer was waging a
draft movement to recruit Warren into the race — released a statement
praising the speech as consistent with the Massachusetts senator and her
economic priorities.

The remarks reflect a “clear understanding that the Democratic Party and
the vast majority of the American people want a president who will fight
alongside [Warren] and refuse to kowtow to wealthy and powerful interests,”
said Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, which has not formally
endorsed a candidate.

But just as Clinton was closing her speech, one unhappy protestor presented
a jarring interruption, yelling repeatedly, “Will you restore Glass
Steagall?”

Clinton did not answer the question.

*Hillary Channels Her Inner Springsteen
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/hillary-channels-her-inner-springsteen.html>
// Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 13, 2015 *

“Maybe it’s the grandmother in me,” Hillary Clinton said Monday, “but I
believe that part of public service is planting trees under whose shade
you’ll never sit.”

The line, which can be attributed to a Canadian farmer named Nelson
Henderson, came toward the end of Clinton’s economic address at The New
School in Manhattan, but it neatly summarizes the entirety of her agenda.

It’s when Clinton is describing big-picture policies that she sounds most
at ease. But when it comes to Hopes and Dreams and Everyday Americans, she
sounds like latter-day Bruce Springsteen.

On his 2009 album Working on a Dream he sang of the “Queen of the
Supermarket” who bags his groceries amid the “aisles and aisles of dreams.”
You get the feeling, listening to the song, that Springsteen, however noble
his intention to pay tribute to the average worker, has probably not set
foot in a supermarket in a very, very long time.

Likewise Clinton uneasily meditated on the plight of “the single mom” but
it wasn’t clear if this was one particular mom or a composite of many moms
or just the proverbial single mom, or “the grandmother” who provides child
care but can’t live on her paycheck, or “the young entrepreneur” who wants
to buy a bowling alley, or the “millions of hardworking Americans [who]
tell similar stories.”

In preparation for today’s speech, Clinton and her aides reportedly spent
months consulting with over 200 domestic policy advisers, including Neera
Tanden, an adviser for her 2008 White House bid, and two former Obama
Administration aides: Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein.

Standing in front of 12 American flags at a Hillaryclinton.com-stamped
lectern, Clinton spent 45 minutes making a series of ambitious policy
promises to the packed West Village auditorium: higher incomes for the
middle class through a change to the tax code to incentivize companies to
“share profits with their employees”; the appointment of harsher bank
regulators; “breaking down barriers” to get more Americans—“especially
women”—into the workforce; increased investment in clean renewable energy;
“comprehensive immigration reform”; and the reining in of “excessive risks
on Wall Street.”

Clinton uneasily meditated on the plight of “the single mom” who she talked
to, but it wasn’t clear if this was one particular mom or a composite of
many moms or just a proverbial single mom.

Clinton’s economic philosophy is preventive rather than prescriptive.

She criticized short-term fixes for financial woes and decried a business
environment which emphasizes end-of-quarter numbers rather than overall
health.

Clinton focused her fire at the Republican field, hitting Marco Rubio,
Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush by name, and tearing into trickle-down policies
which, she claimed, have consistently led to disasters that Democrats,
including her husband, have been forced to bail the country out of. Her
Democratic rivals went unacknowledged, but traces of their influence were
everywhere.

She borrowed the Howard Beale rallying cries of Elizabeth Warren and her
left-wing primary rival Bernie Sanders, but adapted them to fit her tamer
message. (In May, when The New Yorker asked Warren if Clinton was co-opting
her message, Warren responded, “Eh.”)

Whereas Warren declares “the game rigged,” Clinton said (as she has since
her April announcement) that families feel “the deck is stacked.”

And the Sanders line, “If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to
exist,” was edited to say the regulators she appoints will “understand that
too big to fail is still too big a problem.”

Warren and Sanders have called for jail time for big bank CEOs who helped
cause the financial crisis. Clinton tiptoed up to that line and then ran
away scared.

“While institutions have paid large fines and, in some cases, admitted
guilt,” Clinton said, “too often it has seemed that the human beings
responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all, even when
they’ve already pocketed the gains.” She continued, “This is wrong, and on
my watch it will change.” How? She didn’t say, instead promising, as
another Democratic Martin O’Malley did last week, that she would “rein in”
Wall Street. “Over the course of this campaign,” she said, “I will offer
plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock
markets work for everyday investors, not just high-frequency traders and
those with the best or fastest connections.”

*The Numbers Behind Hillary Clinton’s Economic Vision
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-numbers-behind-hillary-clintons-economic-vision/>
// Five Thirty Eight // Ben Casselman and Andrew Flowers – July 13, 2015 *

There was a single thread running through Hillary Clinton’s big economics
speech on Monday: the importance of raising wages for working Americans.
That’s no coincidence: The six-year-old economic recovery has succeeded in
restoring corporate profits and creating jobs, but it hasn’t brought pay
raises for many workers. Wage growth is running ahead of inflation, but it
remains low and hasn’t accelerated as the economy as a whole has improved.
And as Clinton stressed throughout her speech, many of those problems
predate the recession, suggesting deeper structural challenges in the U.S.
economy.

“The defining economic challenge of our time is clear,” Clinton said in a
speech at New York City’s New School. “We must raise incomes for
hard-working Americans, so they can afford a middle-class life. We must
drive steady income growth that lifts up families, and lifts up our
country.”

Clinton’s speech was light on specific proposals — those will arrive in
coming weeks, according to her campaign — but it nonetheless represented
one of the most comprehensive economic policy visions articulated to date
by any of the major presidential candidates.

Many of Clinton’s themes will sound familiar to anyone who’s been listening
to President Obama over the past eight years. She wants to boost incomes
for the middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy and make it easier for
parents to juggle work and family. But she also highlighted issues that
haven’t been as central to Obama’s message, such as encouraging companies
to share more of their profits with workers.

Clinton wasn’t shy about criticizing leading Republican candidates, calling
out Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio by name. Notably absent from her
speech, however, was any reference to her opponents for the Democratic
nomination, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley. But Clinton’s focus on inequality and wages, along with
her criticism of Wall Street and measured skepticism of free trade
agreements, was no doubt partly intended to shore up support among the
liberal wing of her party.

Here are a few key passages from Clinton’s speech, along with some context
and analysis. (Quotes are from a preliminary transcript.)

Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest
middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: If
you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when
you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over the past several decades, that
bargain has eroded.

The core of Clinton’s message is that middle-class incomes have stagnated
in recent years, not just during the recession and its aftermath but even
during better economic times. That’s true, though the middle class’s
struggles are sometimes exaggerated.

The typical (median) U.S. household earned just less than $52,000 before
taxes in 2013, the latest year for which full data is available. Adjusting
for inflation, that’s less than in 1989, suggesting that the middle class
has experienced two and a half decades of income stagnation.

Reality isn’t quite that grim. The Census Bureau’s income statistics don’t
account for the fact that the typical American household is smaller today
than it was 25 years ago. That’s a big deal because a single person living
on $50,000 has a much higher standard of living than a family of six trying
to squeeze by on the same amount. Adjust for household size, and incomes
are up significantly since the late 1980s.

Even adjusting for household size, however, median income has been more or
less stagnant since 2000. Some economists propose other adjustments to the
census figures, such as using a different measure of inflation and looking
at after-tax rather than pre-tax income. But while the exact figures are in
dispute, the overall trend is not: Income growth has been far slower since
2000 than in the decades before.

The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hard-working
families, not just for successful CEOs and money managers and not just some
arbitrary growth targets untethered to people’s lives and livelihoods.

Clinton didn’t mention him by name until later in her speech, but there’s
little doubt this line was intended as a shot at former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush, one of the leading candidates on the Republican side of the campaign.
Bush has pledged to deliver a 4 percent annual growth rate, which he has
argued is the best way to help the middle class.

Clinton says economic growth alone doesn’t necessarily translate into more
money for the middle class. There’s evidence to back that up: In recent
decades, the share of national income that goes to workers has fallen while
the share going to corporate profits has risen. Taken at face value, the
numbers mean workers aren’t benefiting as much from economic growth as they
used to.

Some economists, however, have recently questionedwhether workers’ piece of
the economic pie has shrunk as much as the official figures show, though
they don’t dispute that the so-called labor share fell significantly during
the recession. Moreover, even if the long-term decline is real, it has been
a global phenomenon, affecting virtually the entire developed world,
including many countries with very different economic systems than the
U.S.’s. That raises questions about whether Clinton — or any president —
could do much to reverse the trend.

It’s also worth noting that the one recent period when the labor share
clearly rose was in the late 1990s, which was also the last time economic
growth exceeded 4 percent for an extended period. That doesn’t guarantee a
repeat performance, but it does hint that a period of particularly strong
growth can have benefits for workers up and down the earnings spectrum.
(The late 1990s were also, of course, the last time a president named
Clinton was in office.)

We also have to invest in our students and our teachers at every level, and
in the coming weeks and months, I will lay out specific steps to improve
our schools, make college truly affordable and help Americans refinance
their student debt.

This was nearly the only reference to college in Clinton’s speech, which
might seem surprising given her focus on income: For decades, Democrats
have stressed expanding access to college as a key way to reduce income
inequality and expand the middle class.

On an individual level, there’s little doubt that going to college remains
the clearest pathway to a good job: Theunemployment rate for college
graduates was 2.5 percent in June, compared with 5.4 percent for those with
only a high school diploma. The typical young bachelor’s degree holder in
2013 earned two-thirds more than the typical high school graduate, and
one-third more than the typical worker with an associate degree, according
to census data.

But while a college education can clearly improve an individual’s job
prospects, some economists — including many on the left — argue that
education can’t do much to reduce inequality in the country as a whole. As
more and more Americans go to college, the supply of college graduates has
grown; more than 35 percent of Americans ages 25 to 34 now have at least a
bachelor’s degree, up from less than 10 percent 30 years ago. That’s fine
as long as employers keep needing more college-educated workers, but recent
research suggests that demand for college graduates has leveled off or is
even declining. Perhaps as a result, the college-wage premium — how much
more college graduates earn than nongraduates — has stopped rising.

The movement of women into the American workforce over the past 40 years
was responsible for more than $3.5 trillion in economic growth. But that
progress has stalled.

Another major plank of Clinton’s economic plan is offering families, and
working mothers in particular, family-friendly policies like paid parental
leave. Compared with most wealthy nations, the U.S. offers workers less
paid (and unpaid) parental leave. According to a 2008 analysis by the
left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, the U.S. ranks 20th
out of 21 wealthy countries in offering two-parent families a combined 24
weeks of *unpaid* parental leave — and that is only for the 60 percent of
workers covered through the Family and Medical Leave Act. Currently, only
12 percent of Americans get *paid* parental leave through their job, and
predictably those benefits are more common for higher-income people.

Clinton argued that in addition to promoting fairness, expanding paid
parental leave can have serious economic benefits. One way these policies
could affect the economy as a whole is by helping to reverse the troubling
long-term decline in the share of the population that’s participating in
the labor force. The so-called labor force participation rate — the share
of the population that’s either working or actively looking for work — has
been falling for years and stands at its lowest level since the late 1970s.
The decline poses a major economic challenge because it leaves fewer
workers to support the nonworking population.

The drop has been particularly pronounced among men, whose participation
rate has been falling for decades. But just as important has been the
leveling off and then eventual decline in participation among women. Female
labor force participation peaked at about 60 percent in 2000 and has been
falling ever since. The U.S., which once had one of the highest female
labor force participation rates in the world, according to data from the
OECD, now ranks below Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and a bunch of other
countries.

Liberal economists, including those on Clinton’s team, have long argued
that the U.S. could help more women work if it offered more generous family
benefits. Research estimates that the U.S.’s stingier parental leave
policies explain about 30 percent of its relatively low female labor-force
participation rate. Some states have already instituted family-friendly
policies similar to those outlined in Clinton’s speech. California, Rhode
Island and New Jerseyfund insurance programs that provide four to six weeks
of paid family care leave. Advocates for paid parental leave policies also
cite other economic benefits, such as reduced employee turnover.

Today’s marketplace focuses too much on the short-term, like
second-to-second financial trading and quarterly earnings reports, and too
little on long-term investments.

Clinton sketched out several ideas for reforming corporate America. She
advocated for profit-sharing policies, which offer workers an ownership
piece in the company they work for, with the goal to boost worker
productivity and to distribute the company’s stock gains more evenly.
Clinton said “studies show that profit sharing that gives everyone a stake
in the company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into
employees’ pockets.” In a speech later this week in New Hampshire, she will
have more to say on this issue.

Clinton also decried “quarterly capitalism,” or the short-termism of
corporate America. Citing the declining rates of business investment in
things like factories and research labs and the explosion of share buybacks
and dividends, she pledged to better align corporate decisions for
long-term growth. But she didn’t say how she would do that. Some potential
policies can be found in a report published by the left-leaning (and
Clinton-allied) Center for American Progress earlier this year. To
encourage more long-term thinking by executives, the report proposed
lengthening the time before executive stock options are fully vested, and
limiting how many options executives can exercise. Clinton suggested other
reforms that would affect corporate America, including the Buffett rule —
named after billionaire Warren Buffett — that would institute a minimum tax
of 30 percent on those making more than $1 million a year. She also
proposed closing the carried-interest loophole, which allows those who make
a bulk of their income from capital gains (such as hedge fund managers) to
pay a lower overall tax rate.

Small businesses create more than 60 percent of new American jobs on net,
so they have to be a top priority. I’ve said I want to be the
small-business president, and I mean it. And throughout this campaign, I’m
going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape,
easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification.

Politicians love to talk about the importance of small businesses, but economic
research has found that the real drivers of job growth aren’t small
businesses but new businesses: Fast-growing startups account for a
disproportionate share of hiring. New companies are also key sources of
innovation and productivity gains.

But entrepreneurship in the U.S. is in trouble. The rate at which Americans
start new businesses has been falling for 30 years, a decline that cuts
across industries and geographies. The trend may be surprising given the
buzz around Uber, Airbnb and other high-profile Silicon Valley startups.
But for all the talk of “disruption,” data from multiple sources suggests
that the American economy has become more comfortable for big incumbent
businessesand less hospitable to entrepreneurs.

Clinton’s pledge to cut red tape and provide easier access to capital could
just as easily have come from a speech from one of her Republican
opponents. But the truth is economists aren’t sure what’s behind the
decline in startups, which makes it hard to develop policies to combat it.

Talent is universal; you find it everywhere. But opportunity is not. There
are nearly 6 million young people aged 16 to 24 in America today who are
not in school or at work. The numbers for young people of color are
particularly staggering. A quarter of young black men and nearly 15 percent
of all Latino youth cannot find a job.

Clinton’s decision to highlight young people who are neither working nor in
school is notable because it’s an economic measure that tends to get
relatively little attention in the U.S. In Europe, the concept is so widely
discussed that even mainstream news outlets routinely refer to “NEETs,”
short for “not in employment, education or training.” In some European
countries such as Greece and Italy, more than 30 percent of people ages 20
to 24 are NEETs.

The problem isn’t nearly as severe in the U.S., but it is still
significant. Nearly 19 percent of American 20- to 24-year-olds were neither
working nor in school in 2013, according to OECD data. That’s little better
than in the worst of the recession and is up from 15.5 percent in 2005. And
as Clinton said, the numbers are far worse for many minority groups. OECD
doesn’t break down its data by race, but according to data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 22 percent of black men ages 16 to 24 are neither in
school nor working, compared with 16 percent of all Americans in that age
group.

*Clinton won’t push Glass-Steagall bank bill
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill>
// The Hill // Peter Schroeder – July 13, 2015 *

Hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, an adviser
said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left.

Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton
campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return
of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks.

Liberals frequently argue that the Glass-Steagall Act, whose repeal was
signed into law by President Bill Clinton, would have helped minimize the
damage of the last financial crisis. But Blinder, who worked in the Clinton
White House as well, said that is not in the cards for Hillary Clinton.

“You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” he said, adding that he had
spoken directly to Clinton about the issue.

That law separated traditional banking activity from riskier investment
banking, and its proponents argue it if it had stayed in place, the fallout
from the last financial crisis would have been much less severe.

Liberal critics of Wall Street frequently call for a return to that
firewall, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed its reinstatement
earlier this month.

During a major economic speech Monday, Hillary Clinton was actually
interrupted by a heckler calling on her to reinstate the law.

But former President Clinton has argued against such calls, pointing out
that the banks that collapsed would not have been altered by
Glass-Steagall, and bristled at claims his administration was too friendly
to the financial sector.

In a lengthy economic address in New York, Hillary Clinton laid out her
economic platform as a presidential candidate, and included a lengthy
section vowing tough rules for Wall Street.

She said Washington must “go beyond” the Dodd-Frank financial reform law,
calling banks “still too complex and too risky.” She vowed to prosecute
banks and bankers that break the law, as well as appoint tough regulators
that would crack down on “too big to fail” financial institutions.

On matters like banker prosecutions, Clinton sounded similar to Warren, the
left’s most prominent voice on financial matters. But when it comes to
Glass-Steagall, it appears the two differ.

*Clinton to Bush: Workers need raise, not lecture
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/247676-clinton-to-bush-workers-need-raise-not-lecture>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton rebuked her Republican presidential rival Jeb Bush on
Monday for his assertion that Americans need to work longer hours.

“Let him tell that to the nurse that stands on her feet all day, or the
teacher who is in the classroom, or the trucker that drives all night,” she
said Monday during an economic speech in New York City.

“They don’t need a lecture, they need a raise.”

Bush received widespread criticism from Democrats after comments last week
that Americans “need to work longer hours,” a comment his campaign later
clarified meant to highlight the lack of full-time job opportunities in the
current economic landscape.

Clinton zeroed in on the line as symptomatic of the nation’s deep
inequality. She panned inequality as a main “drag” on the economy and
chided the GOP for relying on “trickle-down economics.”

She also targeted two other GOP candidates: Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and
Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.), who officially announced his campaign on Monday.

Clinton called Rubio’s tax plan, which she argues would cut taxes for
households making $3 million a year by almost $240,000, as a
“budget-busting giveaway.”

And while linking the dwindling power of labor unions to a rise in
inequality, she bashed Walker for making his name on “stomping on workers’
rights” and promised to push back against the “mean-spirited, misguided
attacks.”

Bush's supporters have raked in more than $100 million for his super PAC in
the hopes of countering Clinton's vast fundraising networks. And
conservatives are bullish on Walker and Rubio's chances against her as
well.

Clinton's broad economic speech included a widespread list of proposals
including banking reform, profit-sharing for businesses and domestic policy
reform that she framed as essential to jump-starting the American economy.

*GOP field knocks Clinton on sharing economy
<http://thehill.com/policy/technology/247705-gop-knocks-clintons-views-on-sharing-economy?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>
// The Hill // Mario Trujillo – July 13, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidates are knocking Hillary Clinton after she
delivered a speech claiming the so-called sharing economy, made up of
companies such as Uber and Lyft faced "hard questions."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul came out with the sharpest barb, saying the country
“shouldn’t take advice on the sharing economy from someone who has been
driven around in a limo for 30 years,” referring to Clinton’s revelation
last year that she hadn’t driven a car since 1996.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush’s (R-Fla.) campaign released a statement saying,
“Secretary Clinton’s antiquated proposals protect the special interests
that want to stifle American ingenuity and 21st Century companies like Uber
that are creating jobs.”

In her broad economic speech, Clinton keyed in on the “gig economy,”
cautioning that it raises concerns about workplace protections and said
they must take into account the changing business landscape.

Clinton said the measure of success is how much income can be boosted for
middle-class families. She alluded to companies like Uber, which is
currently the subject of legal challenges from drivers who say they should
be treated as employees not just as contractors. She also seemed to
reference companies like Airbnb, which allows people to rent out apartments
or rooms, and Etsy, an online market for the artists and craftsmen.

“Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing
websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving
their own car,” she said. “This ‘on demand’ or so-called ‘gig economy’ is
creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation but it’s also
raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will
look like in the future.”

The Internet Association, which represents many of those companies,
released a cautious response touting the benefits of the sharing economy.

“The sharing economy empowers people to determine when, where, and how they
want to live and work in ways unimaginable just a few years ago,” the group
said. “It is important to remember that innovation in the sharing economy
has led to unprecedented independence, flexibility, and autonomy that
expands choices for all Americans.”

*Veering left, Hillary Clinton puts profit-sharing in economic plan
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/247665-hillary-touts-profit-sharing-in-economic-plan>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton on Monday called wage inequality the “defining economic
challenge of our time” as she unveiled a wide-reaching economic platform
that veers toward the liberal policies championed by her main rival, Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“As the shadow of crisis recedes and longer-term challenges come into
focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” Clinton
said at The New School in New York City.

“You can’t have one without the other. We can’t create enough jobs and new
businesses without more growth.”

Clinton's 40-minute speech provided the clearest look yet at the economic
proposals she plans to champion while running for the White House. The
expansive address — delivered the day before she visits Capitol Hill to
meet with Democrats — included a litany of specific plans that she said
would boost economic growth and help reduce income inequality.

One of the most attention-grabbing proposals was a call for encouraging
businesses to share their profits with employees. She said she would say
more about that plan in New Hampshire on Thursday, but said the idea would
involve a change to the tax code.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton said.

“That will be good for workers and good for business. Studies show
profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost
productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets.”

Clinton’s focus on economics come as her primary opponent in the Democratic
race, Sanders, continues to draw strong crowds.

While Clinton still holds a mammoth polling edge over Sanders, he’s been
gaining ground. But while Clinton criticized a group of top Republican
challengers in the speech on Monday, she steered clear of mentioning
Sanders.

*Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/hillary-clintons-big-economic-speech-abridged-500-words>
// Mother Jones // Kevin Drum – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton gave her big economic speech today. As is my wont, I plowed
through the transcript and excerpted only those parts that are actual
policy proposals. This is sometimes a judgment call, but I think I got most
of them. I didn't include any vague prescriptions that she promised to
explain in detail in later speeches.

By my count, Hillary's laundry list includes 26 specific proposals, some
with more detail than others. Not bad, even for a Clinton. So for those of
you who aren't interested in the blah blah blah, and just want the meat,
here's the Reader's Digest version of the speech, condensed to about two
minutes of reading time.

Let me begin with strong growth.

....Empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax
relief and simplification.... business tax reform to spur investment in
America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and
profits overseas....comprehensive immigration reform....infrastructure bank
that can channel more public and private funds, channel those funds to
finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports....greater
investments in cleaner, renewable energy right now....fund the scientific
and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire
new industries....breaking down barriers so more Americans participate more
fully in the workforce — especially women....family-friendly
policies....fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick
days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

....Beyond strong growth, we also need fair growth.

....We have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new
rules on overtime....crack down on bosses who exploit employees by
misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages....defending
and enhancing Social Security....encourage companies to share profits with
their employees....reforming our tax code....Buffett Rule....closing the
carried interest loophole....the decline of unions may be responsible for a
third of the increase of inequality among men....we have to get serious
about supporting workers....every 4-year old in America [should] have
access to high-quality preschool in the next ten years....80% of your brain
is physically formed by age of three....intervention to help those
often-stressed out young moms understand more about what they can do and
avoid the difficulties that stand in the way of their being able to get
their child off to the best start....reviving the New Markets Tax Credit
and Empowerment Zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and
remote areas.

....The third key driver of income alongside strong growth and fair growth
must be long-term growth.

....A new $1,500 apprenticeship tax credit....reform capital gains taxes to
reward longer-term investments that create jobs more than just quick
trades....[Make] sure stock buybacks aren’t being used only for an
immediate boost in share prices....Empowering outside investors who want to
build companies but discouraging “cut and run” shareholders who act more
like old-school corporate raiders....Serious risks are emerging from
institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system....I will appoint and
empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a
problem....ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or
oversee....prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or
other criminal wrongdoing....when the government recovers money from
corporations or individuals for harming the public, it should go into a
separate trust fund to benefit the public.

And the obligatory paean to bipartisanship and comity:

....You know passing legislation is not the only way to drive progress. As
President, I’ll use the power to convene, connect, and collaborate to build
partnerships that actually get things done. Because above all, we have to
break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the long-term
needs of our country.

*Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She’s Not Jeb Bush, and She’s a Lot
like Elizabeth Warren
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillarys-economic-speech-jeb-bush-elizabeth-warren>
// Mother Jones // Patrick Caldwell – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's first major economic speech of the 2016 campaign had one
clear target: Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor and top Republican
fundraiser has pledged that, if elected president, he'd ensure 4 percent
annual growth for the country. Clinton acknowledged the importance of
growth but, without directly naming Bush, said that wasn't enough. “I
believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy," she said. "You
can’t have one without the other."

In a speech at the New School in New York City Monday morning, Clinton laid
out a broad vision of what she'd do to make the economy fairer should she
win next year—though it was scant on policy details, with many promises of
specific proposals to come in the next few weeks. "The defining economic
challenge of our time is clear," she said. "We must raise incomes for
hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class life." Clinton
promised to bring more women into the workforce with family-friendly
policies, amend the tax code that lets the rich pay lower rates, end the
misclassification of employees and contractors, and fix business incentives
to focus on the long term rather than quarterly reports.

Clinton avoided discussing her Democratic primary rivals in a speech that
appeared tailored to the general election. Clinton painted Republicans as
obsessed with trickle-down economics and accused Marco Rubio of promoting a
tax plan that would channel money to the rich.

But Bush got the most attention. "You may have heard Gov. Bush say last
week that Americans just need to work longer hours," Clinton said. "Well,
he must not have met very many American workers." Clinton ticked off a list
of professions where full-time work no longer guarantees people a
sufficient livelihood. "They don't need a lecture, they need a raise."
Clinton also defended the economic legacies of Presidents Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama with a dig at the past two Bush presidencies. "Twice now in
the past 20 years," she said, "a Democratic president has had to come in
and clean up the mess left behind."

Though she didn't discuss Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley, the anti-Wall
Street crusader Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a liberal favorite who declined to
mount a primary challenge against Clinton—was clearly on Clinton's mind.
Clinton's remarks came into sharpest focus when she discussed the need for
Wall Street reform. "Too big to fail is still too big a problem," Clinton
said, vowing to appoint regulators who would keep the banks in check.

She borrowed one of Warren's favorite attacks: that the Obama
administration has been too deferential to banks by being unwilling to use
prosecutorial powers against specific Wall Street executives. "We will
prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other
wrongdoing," Clinton promised.

It's not just the major banks, Clinton said, but the hedge funds and
nebulous financial firms that constitute the shadow-banking sector that
need to be regulated. “We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank," she said,
referring to the financial regulation law. "Too many of our major financial
institutions are still too complex and too risky.”

*Hillary Slaps Wall Street, Demands Companies Share Profits
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/13/hillary-slaps-wall-street-demands-companies-share-/>
// Washington Times // Joseph Curl – July 13, 2015 *

In an expansive economic speech on Monday, multimillionaire Hillary Clinton
on Monday called wage inequality the “defining economic challenge of our
time” and demanded that companies share profits with workers.

“As the shadow of crisis recedes and longer-term challenges come into
focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” Clinton
said at The New School in New York City.

“You can’t have one without the other. We can’t create enough jobs and new
businesses without more growth.”

Clinton also accused former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush of an inability to
understand Americans’ needs, claiming Republicans won’t help those stuck in
the middle-class.

Bush, she said, “must not have met many American workers,” and, pointing to
a comment that Bush made about Americans working longer hours, said: “They
don’t need a lecture. They need a raise.”

Clinton also said she would hold Wall Street accountable.

“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial
industry are shocking,” Clinton said. “HSBC allowing drug cartels to
launder money, 5 major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for
conspiring currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no
justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.”

But the Weekly Standard reported that the Clintons received $200,000 from
HSBC in 2011. The bank donated as mush as $1 million to the Clinton
Foundation, the site said.

“In 2011, Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 for a speech to HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc. in Key Largo, FL. In 2007, the Clintons sold between $15,001 and
$50,000 in HSBC Holdings PLC. And HSBC has donated between $500,000 and
$1,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation,” America Rising reports.

“Hillary Clinton attacked the financial criminal behavior of financial
organizations during her economic speech this morning,” said Jeff Bechdel,
America Rising PAC communications director.

“While it sounds like a great talking point, the facts and her own complex
web of finances make it difficult for Hillary Clinton to pretend she’s just
an ‘everyday American.’”

*Details of Hillary Clinton’s liberal economic platform leaked
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/hillary-clintons-liberal-economic-plan-leaked/>
// The Washington Times // S.A. Milller – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton will call for
higher taxes on the wealthy and higher pay for everyone else when she
presents her economic agenda Monday, but her remedy for income inequality
has already come under fire from the right and the left.

In a speech at the New School in New York, Mrs. Clinton will outline a plan
that she says will end more than a decade of wage stagnation that has
hobbled the middle class and created a vast income gap between the megarich
and the working class — a problem that she identifies as the most urgent
economic challenge facing the world.

Details of her economic platform, which will be a cornerstone of Mrs.
Clinton’s campaign, were leaked over the weekend to reporters, including
The New York Times and Washington Post.

The plan is chock full of familiar liberal proposals: increased taxes on
the wealthy, a higher federal minimum wage, more government spending on
infrastructure projects, new child care benefits, federal subsidies for
college tuition and laws to help expand unions.

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state will boast of the
record of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who presided over a
massive economic expansion that boosted median family income by nearly 15
percent between 1993 and 1999.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gave Sen. Bernard Sanders backhanded praise
over Mrs. Clinton, saying the Vermonter &quot;is willing to call himself a
socialist.&quot;

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gave Sen. Bernard Sanders backhanded praise
over Mrs. ... more >

However, she won’t be declaring an end of the era of big government, as her
husband did.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and avowed socialist who has
emerged as Mrs. Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential
nomination, said her liberal agenda echoes proposals he’s backed for years,
and her allegiance to those ideals remains unclear.

“I have spent my political life taking on the big money interests. I have
introduced legislation that would break up the large financial institutions
on Wall Street. I think, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to
exist,” said Mr. Sanders.

He noted his longtime support for raising the federal minimum wage from the
current $7.25 per hour to a “living wage” of $15 per hour. Not until
recently did Mrs. Clinton endorse a $15 minimum hourly wage.

He said Mrs. Clinton’s positions remain unclear on a range of issues from
breaking up Wall Street banks, which Mr. Sanders supports, to President
Obama’s pending trade deal with Pacific Rim countries and the opposed
Keystone XL oil pipeline, both of which Mr. Sanders staunchly opposes.

Mrs. Clinton is not expected to clarify her positions on these or other
hot-button issues in the speech, which is being described as a broad
overview of her economic philosophy. The Clinton campaign has promised that
future speeches will provide details of how she would reform the tax code
and crack down on Wall Street.

“I like Hillary Clinton, and I respect Hillary Clinton. And I’m not going
to engage in personal attacks against Hillary Clinton,” said Mr. Sanders.
“But there are differences of opinion that we have which should be the
basis for a serious discussion.”

The jabs from the right were more pointed.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican candidate for president, said the
proposals from Mrs. Clinton would put America on the same path to
bankruptcy as followed by Greece.

“Give Bernie Sanders credit: At least he’s willing to call himself a
socialist,” Mr. Jindal said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Hillary and President
Obama are taking us down that same path, turning the American dream into
the European nightmare.”

“We already know what it is going to say,” he said of Mrs. Clinton’s
speech. “It is going to be more taxes, more government spending, more
regulations. It’s feeding a greedier and greedier government that’s going
to swallow up the private sector economy.”

Another Republican presidential candidate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly
Fiorina, said Mrs. Clinton’s “big government” solutions actually would
widen the income gap.

“The truth is, Hillary Clinton’s ideas create more income inequality. Why?
Because bigger government creates crony capitalism,” she said on ABC’s
“This Week.”

“When you have a 70,000-page tax code, you’ve got to be very wealthy, very
powerful, very well connected to dig your way through that tax code,” said
Ms. Fiorina. “What I will continue to point out is the fact that every
policy she is pursuing will make income inequality worse, not better, crony
capitalism even worse, not better. And, meanwhile, we will continue to
crush the businesses that create jobs and middle-class families.”

Ms. Fiorina said that she agreed that income inequality is a “huge
problem,” though she said Mrs. Clinton is wrong about how to narrow the
income gap.

“Let’s look to the state of California, where I lived for 12 years,” she
said. “Liberal policies have been in place for decades, and yet there are
111 billionaires — good for them — the highest poverty rates in the nation,
the exodus of the middle class, the destruction of industry after industry.
Now they’re destroying agriculture in California.”

She said she agreed with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a rival for the GOP
presidential nomination, who set a goal of 4 percent economic growth rather
than the current lethargic rate of 1 percent or 2 percent.

Mrs. Fiorina said the focus should be on the “true engine of economic
growth and job creation.”

“It has always been small businesses, new businesses, family-owned
businesses, community-based businesses that create two-thirds of the jobs
and employ half the people,” she said. “And we are now crushing those
businesses. In fact, we are destroying more businesses in the United States
now than are being created for the first time in our history.”

*Hillary Clinton’s economic speech is heavy on attacking Republicans
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/13/hillary-clintons-economic-speech-heavy-attacking-r/>
// Washington Times // S.A. Miller – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton jabbed GOP
rival Jeb Bush when she presented her economic agenda Monday, hitting the
former Florida governor for saying that Americans need to “work longer
hours” to spur wage growth.

“He must not have met many American workers,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Let him
tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day … to the fast-food
workers who march in the streets demanding better pay. They don’t need a
lecture. They need a raise.”

Mrs. Clinton has launched repeated attacks on Mr. Bush since he made the
comment in New New Hampshire, although Mr. Bush was describing the low
worker participation rate during the slow economic recovery.

“They don’t need a lecture. They need a raise,” Mrs. Clinton said in a
speech at the New School in New York City, where outlined a liberal
economic agenda that focused on boosting stagnant wage growth for
working-class Americans.

She also took aim at other Republican presidential hopefuls, including
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who announced his entrance in the race earlier
in the day, saying he built his political carrier “stomping” on workers’
rights.

Mrs. Clinton said that the scourge of income inequality required ​the new
ideas that she was offering, not the old “trickle down” economic policies
that she said Republican continue to ​promote and which ​she blamed for
both the Great Recession and the concentration of wealth among the richest
families.

​Her plans included ranged from mandatory paid sick leave and incentives
for corporations to provide more profit sharing ​to raising the minimum
wage and giving America’s roughly 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway
to citizenship.

*Hillary hits Clinton Foundation donor in economic speech
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-hits-foundation-donor-in-speech/article/2568142>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton took aim at a bank that has donated heavily to the Clinton
Foundation and paid her husband generous speaking fees.

During a sweeping economic address Monday, Clinton accused British bank
HSBC of "laundering" money for "drug cartels" and called for an end to such
"criminal behavior" from major financial firms.

HSBC entered a nearly $2 billion agreement with the U.S. in 2013 to lay
criminal charges to rest in the wake of findings that the bank had failed
to stop "drug kingpins" from laundering money through its channels.

But two years earlier, HSBC was inviting former President Bill Clinton to
speak at an event at the swanky Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Fla. Bill
Clinton was paid $200,000 for the engagement.

It was not the first time Bill Clinton had spoken at HSBC's behest; he also
asked the State Department's permission in 2009 to attend an event hosted
by the bank in the United Arab Emirates while his wife was secretary of
state.

Bill and Hillary Clinton owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in HSBC holdings
before Hillary Clinton launched her first presidential campaign, financial
disclosure records show.

What's more, HSBC has donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the
Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton's ties to the London-based bank, first noted by the
Republican-aligned group America Rising, raise questions about her
commitment to taking down the very financial firms that have fueled much of
her family's success in the years since Bill Clinton left the White House.

*Hillary Clinton talks economics at New School in New York City
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-talks-economics-new-school-manhattan-article-1.2290490>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton laid out her economic agenda Monday, with a heavy focus on
raising middle-class wages after decades of increasing pay inequality.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have
one without the other," the Democratic presidential frontrunner declared at
the New School in Manhattan.

Clinton's speech was filled with economic proposals that are broadly
popular with Democrats as she triangulates between appealing to the
centrist voters she'll need to defeat the GOP nominee next year and the
populist Democratic base that is coalescing around Bernie Sanders in the
primary.

"Wages need to rise to keep up with costs. Paychecks need to grow," she
declared. "The defining economic challenge of our time is clear. We must
raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class
life."

Hillary Clinton spoke Monday at the New School in New York City.

The speech marks the beginning of a series of policy speeches fleshing out
her economic vision.

Clinton ripped Republicans' "trickle down" economic plans, calling instead
for a minimum wage increase, guaranteed paid sick and family leave,
increased taxes on the wealthy, increasing union strength and reducing
health care costs, and making college more affordable.

*Uber may become an issue in the US presidential race as Hillary Clinton
vows to crack down on worker ‘misclassificiation’
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vows-to-crack-down-on-worker-misclassification-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Nathan Mcalone – July 13, 2015 *

The on-demand economy, including the 1099 workers who companies such as
Uber rely on, is now an issue in the US presidential race.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in on the topic in a speech on
Monday.

In a comment that seems aimed at companies such as Uber, which pays most of
its workers as independent contractors instead of employees, she vowed to
"crack down on employers who misclassify employees as independent
contractors," calling it "wage theft," according to TechCrunch. But she
stopped short of naming any companies.

"Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days,
child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth," Clinton
reportedly said. The former secretary of state is the leading candidate in
the Democratic field but is facing a challenge from the left in the form of
self-described socialist Bernie Sanders.

In her speech, Clinton said the "so-called gig economy is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation," according to the report. But she
countered by saying it was raising tough questions about protections for
workers and even the future of the concept of a good job.

The debate over the classification of Uber’s workers has raged for months,
but little concrete had been decided until last month, when the California
labor commission ruled that an Uber driver was an employee, not an
independent contractor.

The commission sided with Uber driver Barbara Ann Berwick primarily because
it considered Uber to be "involved in every aspect of the operation."
Berwick was awarded over $4,000 for her employee expenses.

Berwick has since launched Rideshare School, which promises to teach
"drivers from ride-sharing services how to enforce their rights as
employees and reclaim funds for driving expenses, overtime, and more." A
three-hour class will cost $50.

While Berwick's lawsuit was individual, Uber is also fighting a federal
class-action lawsuit that seeks to force Uber to reclassify all its drivers
as employees. Uber has argued that the suit should be dropped because the
160,000 drivers referred to have "have little or nothing in common, other
than their use of the Uber App in California at some point over the past
six years."

*Heckler ejected from Hillary Clinton speech after interrupting to ask
about Wall Street regulation
<http://www.businessinsider.com/heckler-ejected-from-hillary-clinton-event-2015-7#ixzz3fmumUpX8>
// Business Insider // Colin Campbell & Hunter Walker – July 13, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's major economic speech on Monday
was interrupted by a protester who demanded answers from her about
investment banking regulations.

The heckler, Daniel Burke, stood up and shouted at the end of Clinton's
address, in which she outlined her presidential campaign's economic agenda.

"Senator Clinton, will you restore Glass-Steagall?" Burke yelled.

Clinton, who was speaking in Manhattan at The New School, appeared taken
aback. She did not answer his question. Her supporters in the audience
eventually started clapping to drown out Burke and security escorted him
from the building.

Outside, Burke told Business Insider he is an organizer with LaRouche PAC,
which supports the controversial political activist Lyndon LaRouche.

The Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 and repealed in 1999,
separates commercial banks and investment banks. Burke said he supports
efforts launched last week by a bipartisan group of senators including Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) to restore Glass-Steagall. He said this
is particularly important because the situation in Greece could fuel
another financial crisis.

"It should be passed immediately, preferably in the next two weeks. We
really do not know what will come ... of the potential for an immediate
financial crash on the basis of the Greek trigger," Burke said.

Clinton has not been clear about her position on Glass-Steagall. Her two
Democratic primary rivals, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) have said they support restoring the law.

Burke told Business Insider he is unhappy Clinton did not answer questions
at the speech.

"She should take questions so that these things could be raised," he said.

View videos and photos of Burke interrupting the speech as well as our
interview with him outside the event below.

*Hillary Clinton just gave a big economic speech
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-economic-speech-2015-7> //
Business Insider // Brett Logiurato – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is using what her
campaign is describing as a "major economic address" Monday morning to call
for companies to share more profits with their employees and reforming the
nation's tax code.

Clinton promised to change the tax code to encourage companies to expand
profit-sharing with their employees in the speech, which she delivered
Monday morning at the famously progressive New School in Manhattan.

"We need new ideas. ... One that I believe in and will fight for is profit
sharing," Clinton said, according to excerpts of her speech released by her
campaign.

"Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce," she said. "So I will propose ways to
encourage companies to share profits with their employees. That will be
good for workers and good for business. Studies show profit-sharing that
gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity and
put money directly into employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win."

Clinton took shots at three Republican candidates by name: former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush, for his much-debated comment last week that people need to
"work more hours"; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, for his fights against
public-sector unions; and Sen. Marco Rubio, for his tax-reform plan.

The speech was the first major economic address of Clinton's campaign, and
it comes as she is facing a bit of a surge from US Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vermont), who has positioned himself as something of a more progressive
alternative to Clinton.

In the speech, she took a subtle shot at the past six-plus years of
President Barack Obama's presidency. A Clinton campaign official said prior
to the speech that her vision aims to outline how, "after years of economic
growth that have not delivered a meaningful rise in middle-class incomes,"
the country can "grow together."

We'll have more on Clinton's speech as it develops.

*Hillary Clinton just called out the economic problem of the next decade
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-just-called-out-the-economic-problem-of-the-next-decade-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Shane Ferro – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton just brought the most important economic issue of the next
decade into the mainstream: the gig economy.

The gig, or on-demand, economy is the new favorite business model coming
out of Silicon Valley.

It is relevant to companies such as Uber, which streamlines work for its
drivers and takes a cut of their fares but lets them work on their own
schedule. It's a little bit like a blend between the regular employment
model and the freelancer model.

Whether we like it or not, the gig economy seems to be everywhere. More and
more Americans are turning to this semi-freelance way of making a living.

A study from the software company Intuit a few years ago estimated that as
much as 40% of the American workforce could be freelancers, independent
contractors, or consultants by the year 2020. It's a major, major economic
shift.

The New York Times reported that the director of the Freelancers Union,
which advocates independent contractors, "puts the scale of the dislocation
on a par with that caused by the spread of railroads before and after the
Civil War and the boom in the mass production of goods during the early
20th century."

Today's economy isn't set up to deal with this kind of disruption. Policy,
so far, has not addressed it. That Clinton addressed the issue in her
speech gives the issue a spotlight and legitimacy, the first step forward.

"This on-demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities
and unleashing innovation, but it's also raising hard questions about
workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future," she
said at the New School in Manhattan on Monday.

So, why is the gig economy a problem?

First off, it's expensive for its workers. What independent contractors
gain in flexibility, they lose in benefits. Employment taxes are higher,
healthcare is more expensive, and 401(k)s (let alone pensions) don't exist
for people who freelance. Even if freelancers get paid the same amount as
they would at a regular job, they still have a lot less left over to drive
the consumer spending that makes up 70% of the American gross domestic
product.

We need to be worried about this. Nearly everyone in America outside the
top 10% of the income scale has seen incomes fall since 2007.

A recent article by Nick Hanauer and David Rolf in Democracy Journal calls
this new kind of economy "an economic transformation that promises new
efficiencies and greater flexibility for 'employers' and 'employees' alike,
but which threatens to undermine the very foundation upon which
middle-class America was built."

Like it or not, addressing the gig economy head on will have to be part of
the solution. Monday's speech was a first step. That said, while Clinton
raised the issue, she still hasn't laid out a plan for what should be done.

*Here are the 3 Republicans that Hillary Clinton took big shots at during
her major economic speech
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-jabs-jeb-rubio-walker-2015-7#ixzz3fmof9iAh>
// Business Insider // Maxwell Tani – July 13, 2015 *

For one of the first times in her presidential campaign, Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton took direct shots at several of her Republican
rivals.

In a sweeping economic policy speech at the New School in New York on
Monday, Clinton criticized three Republican presidential candidates
including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
(R), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) by name.

It's a sign that she expects to face one of the three in a general-election
matchup next year.

Clinton first took a direct shot at Bush over his comments that Americans
need to work longer hours to spur economic growth.

"You may have heard Gov. Bush say last week that Americans need to work
longer hours. He must not have met very many American workers," Clinton
said.

"Let him tell that to the fast food workers marching in the streets for
better pay," Clinton said, referencing the push from McDonald's workers for
a raise. "They don't need a lecture, they need a raise."

Bush's remarks — which prompted debate over whether they were taken out of
context — outlined the governor's ambitious plan to reach 4% growth by
helping more part-time workers find full-time employment.

Clinton then moved on to Rubio, claiming that the senator's tax plan
includes a major tax $240,000 cut for individuals making over $3 million.

"That's a sure budget-busting giveaway to the super-wealthy," Clinton said.

The former Secretary of State also went after Walker, who will officially
enter the race later on Monday, over the governor's heated battle with
Wisconsin's public-sector employee unions.

"Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names by stomping
on workers' rights," Clinton said.

The comments came during a major policy speech on economic policy.

The former Secretary of State laid out a number of proposals that she
claims will help reduce income inequality, including reigning in the
financial industry, raising the minimum wage and increasing training for
low-wage workers, reforming the immigration system, and reforming the tax
code.

The presumed front runners who Clinton took aim at have each criticized her
at length over everything from her tenure as Secretary of State to her
current policy proposals.

As The Washington Post's Rebecca Sinderbrand pointed out, before the speech
even began, Bush's campaign was attempting to capitalize on the attention.
Minutes before the start of the speech, the Bush campaign sent out a
fundraising email asking supporters to donate to fund a "Hillary Rapid
Response Fund."

Shortly after the speech finished, Bush jabbed Clinton on Twitter.

*Hillary Clinton’s Economic Intervention Agenda Unveiled
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2015/07/13/hillary-clintons-economic-intervention-agenda-unveiled/>
// Forbes // Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. – July 13, 2015 *

In her major New School speech outlining her economic agenda, Hillary
Clinton had a lot to say about jobs and higher incomes for Americans, but
not much about what matters to those expected to provide them.

Hiring and business startups are suffering, fewer are self employed. Any
politician concerned about jobs would first and foremost seek to reduce
barriers to employment; to raise employers’ willingness to hire.

Yet this is an individual who says “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody
tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create
jobs.”

The real issue is not “income inequality,” but rather that one has to be
fairly heroic to be an employer in today’s environment of hostility toward
capitalism and free enterprise. It is not easy to create jobs for others.

Today the candidate was “proposing an agenda for raising incomes,” but most
of it was about more obligations–externally induced higher wages and
benefits– for those carrying the weight and doing the hiring in America.

The Washington Post was full of praise on “seven big things” to know about
Hillary’s plan. But few ask the key question about these endless flights of
interventionist policy fancy, and Clinton is hardly unique in launching
them; Will this vision cause business to see hiring new workers as
favorable and a smart move, or more of a risk and something to avoid?

Let’s look at some initiatives being touted by Hillary Clinton. She has
little private sector business experience, yet wants to “ raise median
incomes” (unconcerned that government is an instrument of compulsion, of
wealth transfer–not productivity).

Clinton said she’ll “build on” the Affordable Care Act. Notable here is
that Obamacare’s employer mandate will activate when individual
subsidies–now affirmed by the Supreme Court–kick in. Will that development
and her promise to double-down make business more or less likely to hire?

She called for new “public investments,” and establing an “infrastructure
bank” to “ channel public and private funds.” Those were her words;
government to channel funds. The government steers and the market only
rows, in her view.

We’ve tried the shovel-ready, we’ve tried the trillion-plus stimulus; that
didn’t work, yet she persists, calling for broadband “investment” (isn’t
that a private industry?) and “cleaner” renewable energy investments (more
Solyndra).

One gets the impression many on the left see the private sector as
increasingly optional. (In news showing a similar mindset, President Barack
Obama just locked up more lands in the west, where even the Post
acknowledges the federal government owns over half.)

Clinton supports Obama’s new overtime pay rules. Will that make business
more or less likely to expand hiring?

She says another overlooked need is breaking down workforce barriers and
labor force participation, “especially for women.” She claims we are
leaving talent on the sidelines. Those are legitimate issues, and the
complexities and the sociology of it all are immense.

But that intro led to the real pitch: to make mandatory more paid family
leave and earned sick pay; or pay for not working, missing the irony of
just having talked about workplace participation. Will being required to
make accommodations for work not done make business more or less likely to
hire employees in the future?

Clinton called for affordable child care; but it’s not clear how the
government does that without capturing more private sector resources; and
such policies ignore the broader cultural debate that swirls over
government assuming the roles of parents.

She touted early learning, another not-cheap program, in the form of “every
four year old with access to pre-school.” Clinton claims to want to end the
era of “budget brinksmanship” in Washington. But gauging from her speech,
that must mean that others must stop arguing with Democrats about spending
more money on progressives’ pet social programs.

In discussing income inequality, Clinton invoked the “ nurse, teacher,
trucker, fast food worker.”  ”They don’t need a lecture [which she said Jeb
Bush gave them], they need a raise.” Clinton proclaims, “So we do have to
raise the minimum wage, and implement Obama’s new rules on overtime.” Then
she touted “worker bargaining power” and driving up wages via compulsory
union advancement. Will all this make business more or less likely to hire?
Will it increase or lessen “ inequality”?

Astoundingly, Clinton claimed she said can do all this without burdens on
small business — the Jobs Fairy will pay, one presumes.

Clinton did acknowledge red tape, but said nothing about significant
relief, via reforms like the “Small Business Regulatory Sunset Act” from
Senators Mark Kirk and Steve Daines, among many other regulatory
liberalizations. The stances come from different universes, although it was
nice to see her credit small business with providing half of jobs.

Clinton will get a lot of attention for  encouraging incentives for
employer “profit sharing” with workers.

Let it be understood that profit sharing means something different when
government mandates or “ incentivizes”  it, compared to when companies do
it of their own accord. Competition has many facets and is extraordinarily
complex. Clinton promises more details “in New Hampshire” later. So if
you’re hearing that, and you’re a business looking to direct new earnings
and profits to growth, is this promise of intervention going to make you
less or more inclined to hire?

Clinton attacks corporations, of which many ordinary individuals are
shareholders, despite corporations paying her huge speaking fees, and
collecting more money from them than anyone I know. She called for Buffet
Rule tax requirements, closing carried interest loopholes. She talked
disparagingly about “quarterly capitalism” and business “ short-termism“;
but she neglected politicians much like herself doing the very same thing
in promising wealth transfers and government growth.

She wants to go “beyond Dodd-Frank,” extending the already numbingly
complex financial law to address the risks in hedge funds, high frequency
trading and non-bank entities “which receive little oversight at all.” So
government has a better record managing finances, she thinks? She mentioned
private firms rigging interest rates (no one is opposed to clamping down on
fraud), but not the Federal Reserve and its century of manipulation of
money and credit, or Dodd-Frank’s escalation of too-big-to-fail. To “rein
in excessive risk on Wall Street,” she, seemingly without irony, wants to
“empower new regulators.”

In her promise to “crack down” on business and employers, she wants a
“trust fund” created out of imposed penalties to “ modernize
infrastructure.”  That is an invitation to corruption and trumped up
charges against firms. Will this, and all the foregoing, make Wall Street
and corporations better or worse at funding the ventures that lead to
hiring?

For that matter, will more or fewer corporations even form under policies
like those articulated here?

Even the technology frontier is not exempt. Clinton touted technology such
as the sharing economy, but then said it “raises questions about workplace
protections and what a ‘real’ job will look like in the future.”  Will
knowing Hillary Clinton will be questioning your new economy business
practices make firms more or less likely to hire–or to form in the first
place?

The annual federal deficit in the U.S. is projected to head back to the $1
trillion level in a few years, but Clinton seems unconcerned with getting
spending under control. Federal regulations are an even bigger problem,
creating uncertainty, making hiring a business risk and distorting the path
of industries across the board. Clinton seems ready to add to the
regulatory enterprise in the name of income inequality–but her
interventions would worsen things.

In pursuit of job creation and economic growth, Congress is debating
several red tape reforms with elevated but still insufficient focus.

In the wake of its “Waters of the United States” rule, the Environmental
Protection Agency just this week issued a 600-page rule on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles. Republicans object, but all such are made possible by
Congress’ perpetual delegation of lawmaking power to agencies.

As I write this, the 2015 Federal Register has topped 40,000 pages, and
contains 1,658 rules year-to-date.

Congressional reforms under consideration include automatic sunsetting of
rules, versions of a base-closure style regulatory reduction commission
(something bi-partisan for a change), and regulatory budgets.

Most worthwhile would be mandatory congressional votes and a presidential
signature for the largest of each year’s 3,500-plus rules and regulations;
that is, treat regulations like normal laws, since they are, after all,
laws.

CEI Agenda for Congress -- 114th Congress

With thousands of agency proclamations annually, it was never enough for
so-called “significant” or “major” rules to receive White House Office of
Management and Budget review. That’s the primary foot on the brake, and
it’s weak.

Meanwhile, regulatory dark matter is gaining ground on the readily
observable. Congress needs to scrutinize all agency decrees that affect the
public, not just official rules.

“Sub rosa” regulation has been an issue for decades. In 1989′s Regulation
and the Reagan Era: Politics, Bureaucracy and the Public Interest, Robert A
Rogowski explained:

Regulatory bureaucracies are able to accomplish their goals outside the
realm of formal rulemaking….An impressive underground regulatory
infrastructure thrives on investigations, inquiries, threatened legal
actions, and negotiated settlements. … Many of the most questionable
regulatory actions are imposed in this way, most of which escape the
scrutiny of the public, Congress, and even the regulatory watchdogs in the
executive branch.

Even if formal notice and comment and OMB rule review were optimized, they
can never suffice. “Undocumented regulation” like presidential and agency
memoranda, guidance documents, bulletins, notices and press releases may
enact policy with legal effect. Rule interpretations may be expressed by
agencies, and regulated parties pressured to comply, without an actual
formal regulation or an appreciation of costs.

Such proclamations obviously skirt the constitutional lawmaking process,
but evade even the lesser published notice-and-comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and subsequent OMB review.

A July 2012 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform expressed concern over guidance documents
(“non-legislative” rules), but three years have passed and nothing was done:

Guidance documents, while not legally binding or technically enforceable,
are supposed to be issued only to clarify regulations already on the books.
However… they are increasingly used to effect policy changes, and they
often are as effective as regulations in changing behavior due to the
weight agencies and the courts give them. Accordingly, job creators feel
forced to comply.

John Graham and James Broughel propose options such as reinstating a George
W. Bush requirement to prepare analysis for guidance documents, explicitly
labeling them as nonbinding, and requiring formal notice and comment for
significant ones.

Guidance documents are an easy way of getting around oversight, since the
APA’s requirement of publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
doesn’t apply to “to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (P.L. 79-404. Section
553). Presto!

The APA also allows agencies a so-called “good cause” exemption from the
requirement to provide the public with a warning, a notice of upcoming
rulemaking. Thus it will be unsurprising to learn that the Government
Accountability Office appeared in 2012 to announce:

Agencies did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), enabling
the public to comment on a proposed rule, for about 35 percent of major
rules and about 44 percent of nonmajor rules published during 2003 through
2010.

Like agency notice-and-comment rules, sometimes guidance is upheld by
courts, sometimes not, when it does more than merely interpret.

Notable examples of guidance include the Federal Trade Commission’s
guidance on disclosure of paid search engine results, and President Barack
Obama’s waivers of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act elements. It
seems no one has conducted a systematic study of the total quantity of
agency guidance but it may be that guidance document volume dwarfs that of
rulemaking (Raso 2010), which may not be surprising when no one can even
say with authority how many agencies exist.

As noted above, this is not new: A 1992 Duke Law Journal article noted that
“Federal Aviation Administration rules are two inches thick while
corresponding guidance totals forty feet; similarly, IRS rules consume a
foot of space while supporting guidance documents total over twenty feet.”
It is hard to argue against the conclusion by Mary Whisner that “the body
of guidance documents (or nonlegislative rules) is growing, both in volume
and in importance.”

All potentially significant decrees by agencies need scrutiny, not just
“rules.” It is most assuredly the case that agencies will attempt to
strategically adapt to the new scrutiny and skirt review, by such means as
informal provision of information to a regulated party regarding an agency
expectations, as Stuart Shapiro has explained. (“Nice business you got
there, shame if something were to happen to it.”) But a highly engaged
executive and Congress can draw attention to and highlight regulatory dark
matter and sub-rosa regulatory activity.

New administrative constraints could lead to many unforeseen measures by
agencies to escape oversight, effectiveness of which could depend
“significantly on how easy it is for OIRA [OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs] to detect avoidance, and for OIRA, the courts, and
others to respond” (Mendelson, Nina A. and Wiener 2014). Agencies can also
raise the costs of presidential review of what they do, “self-insulating”
their decisions with “variations in policymaking form, cost-benefit
analysis quality, timing strategies, and institutional coalition-building
(Nou 2013).”

It will become increasingly clear that the delegation of legislative power
from the elected to the unelected is at the root of many of these concerns,
so answers exist.

*Hillary Clinton vows to give workers a raise
<http://fortune.com/2015/07/13/clinton-promises-a-raise/> // Fortune //
Tory Newmyer – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton just started the drumbeat that she aims to sustain her
presidential bid and, as she framed it, her presidency itself: Working
Americans need a raise. In the first major economic policy speech of her
campaign, the Democratic front-runner called out a recovery that’s
distributed too many of its gains to the wealthiest and promised to be a
hands-on agent ensuring more profits from Wall Street and beyond end up in
the pockets of employees.

“The defining economic challenge of our time is clear. We must raise
incomes for hardworking Americans so they can afford a middleclass life,”
Clinton told a morning crowd at New York City’s New School, a liberal
university and think tank. “We must drive strong and steady income growth
that lifts up families and lifts up our country. And that will be my
mission from the first day I’m president to the last.”

To get that done, Clinton proposed a mix of stand-by Democratic policies —
raising the minimum wage, making childcare more affordable, and ending tax
breaks for financiers, to name a few — plans she acknowledged as
“time-tested and more than a little battle-scarred.” But she also pledged
to confront corporate short-termism, a phenomenon she said is sapping
investments in research, infrastructure and training while concentrating
returns among the super wealthy.

Clinton used the speech to tip her hat to the presidencies of her husband
and the current officeholder, whom she served for four years as Secretary
of State, saying both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama “had to come in and
clean up the mess left behind” by Republicans. Yet as she sustains
Republican attacks that her connections to both mean her candidacy offers
little more than a warmed-over throwback, Clinton suggested her presidency
would turn a page. She presented as an empathetic grandma, drawing at one
point on a conversation with a nurse during her granddaughter’s birth that
underlined the importance of family leave protections. And she blended that
with a brand of technocratic populism she’s been honing on the campaign
trail, as she seeks to convince a restive liberal base she’s attuned to
their demands without aping the more acid-tipped barbs of Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders, her closest-running rival for the Democratic nod.

Clinton reserved her toughest talk for the financial industry. In a subtle
swipe at her former boss, she declared it wrong that Wall Street executives
have escaped prosecution even when their firms have admitted to crimes,
“and on my watch, it will change,” she said. Funds recovered from penalties
on both firms and individuals should pay for new investments in
infrastructure — or be returned directly to taxpayers, she said. And
despite the post-crisis reforms tackling Too Big To Fail institutions,
Clinton said too many major financial firms still pose systemic risks,
suggesting she’d apply a litmus test to ensure the regulators she appoints
agree. And she vowed to subject firms operating in the shadow banking
system to new regulatory scrutiny, as well. But she was short on specifics
— a fact highlighted by a heckler who tried to interrupt to demand whether
she would restore the prohibition on securities trading by commercial banks
that her husband removed (Clinton ignored him).

Clinton said she will flesh out the policy proposals she previewed in a
series of speeches over the coming weeks. The first of those comes Thursday
in New Hampshire, where the candidate will detail her plan to incentivize
corporate profit sharing with employees. “Studies show that profit sharing
that give everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity
and put money directly into employees pockets. It’s a win-win,” she said.

Clinton was more measured in her comments about the new behemoths of the
sharing economy. In a glancing reference to Silicon Valley darlings like
Airbnb, Uber and Lyft, she said “the so-called gig economy is creating
exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation. But its also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future.” And she briefly appeared to return to the fledgling sector
later, promising to “crack down on bosses who exploit employees by
misclassifying them as contractors,” an issue recently dogging Uber, in
particular.

Though the policy proposals she associated with it remain meager for now,
perhaps the most provocative portion of Clinton’s address dealt with what
she framed as the scourge of short-termism, an affliction challenging the
capitalist system itself. “In recent years, some of our biggest companies
have spent more than half their earnings to buy back their own stock and
another third or more to pay dividends,” she said. “That doesn’t leave a
lot left to raise pay or invest in the workers who made those profits
possible or to make new investments necessary to ensure a company’s future
success.” She said she’s heard concern about the trend from business
leaders themselves, who are eager “to embrace their responsibilities, not
just to today’s share price, but to workers, communities, and ultimately to
our country, and, indeed, our planet.” But she signaled she’ll favor a
carrot rather than a stick to address it, proposing a $1,500 tax credit for
each new worker trained and hired and tweaks to capital gains taxes, to be
named later, to encourage longer-term investments.

Teasing the speech over the weekend, Clinton’s campaign released a list of
the economic brains who helped shape it. The roster — heavy with liberal
stalwarts including Christina Romer, Obama’s first chair of the Council of
Economic Advisers; Jared Bernstein, formerly Vice President Joe Biden’s
chief economist; Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress;
and Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist — itself testifies to
Clinton’s conscious move to the left.

*12 Progressive Promises From Hillary Clinton’s Economic Speech
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12-progressive-promises-from-hillary-clintons-economic-speech-20150713>
// Rolling Stone // Tim Dickinson – July 13, 2015 *

In an address that lurched wildly between Elizabeth Warren-style populism
and a more familiar corporate centrism, Democratic frontrunner Hillary
Clinton unveiled a framework of her economic platform in at the New School
in Manhattan on Monday.

Taking the fight to Republicans, Hillary threw punches at a trio of GOP
candidates: Scott Walker, for "stomping on workers' rights"; Jeb Bush, for
his out-of-touch suggestion that Americans need to work more hours — "he
must not have met very many American workers"; and Marco Rubio, for a tax
plan she scoffed is a "budget-busting give-away to the super-wealthy."

By contrast, Clinton offered an economic plan she called "principled and
pragmatic and progressive" — with a central promise to grow the economy and
the wages of average Americans.

Despite at times soaring progressive rhetoric — "hard working Americans
deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they help produce" —
much of what Clinton proposed sounded like it was written by Bob Dole's
economic team, including her promise to "push for broader business tax
reform to spur investment in America."

Clinton repeatedly banged the drum of deregulation — for the little guy.
She promised to roll back Dodd Frank restrictions on smaller lenders, or as
she put it to "ease burdens on community banks." And she vowed to be "the
small business president" offering to slash taxes for job creators,
specifically pledging to "empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier
access to capital, tax relief and simplification."

But Clinton didn't leave the Democratic base out in the cold. Many of her
most specific policy proposals are unmistakably progressive.

Here we survey the 12 leftiest economic promises Clinton made:

1. "We have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama's new
rules on overtime."

2. "I'll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them
as contractors."

3. "Let's establish an infrastructure bank that can channel more public and
private funds, channel those funds to finance world-class airports,
railways, roads, bridges and ports."

4. "I'm committed to seeing every 4-year-old in America have access to
high-quality preschool in the next ten years."

5. "I support the Buffett Rule, which makes sure that millionaires don't
pay lower rates than their secretaries."

6. "I have also called for closing the carried interest loophole, which
lets wealthy financiers pay an artificially low rate."

7. "When the government recovers money from corporations or individuals for
harming the public, it should go into a separate trust fund to benefit the
public. It, could for example, help modernize infrastructure or even be
returned directly to taxpayers."

8. "I've proposed a new $1,500 apprenticeship tax credit for every worker
[businesses] train and hire."

9. "I've called for reviving the New Markets Tax Credit and Empowerment
Zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and remote areas."

10. "I will soon be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to
reward longer-term investments that create jobs more than just quick
trades."

11. "I will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and
ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors, not just high
frequency traders and those with the best – or fastest – connections."

12. "Another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive immigration
reform….Bringing millions of hard-working people into the formal economy
would increase our gross domestic product by an estimated $700 billion over
ten years."

*Hillary Clinton Tells Progressives: Trust Me, Trust Me, Trust Me
<http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-tells-progressives-trust-me-trust-me-1717548816>
// Gawker // Hamilton Nolan – July 13, 2015 *

Today, Hillary Clinton gave her first major speech on her economic policy.
“Blah blah working families,” she said. What did she really say?

Talk is cheap. This speech was amply hyped as Hillary’s big, progressive
statement—one that would establish once and for all that she is liberal
enough (and fiery enough) to be an acceptable choice for the Democratic
party’s left wing, which has spent the past several years appropriately
raging over America’s growing economic inequality. This speech, in other
words, was Hillary’s chance to convince the Bernie Sanders demographic that
she, too, can be their champion.

Anyone who wants to call themself a progressive in this country today must
grasp how entrenched, pervasive, and harmful our inequality is. The worst
since the Great Depression. A simple plan for addressing this issue should
include things like, A) Higher taxes on the very wealthy, including estate
taxes and capital gains taxes; B) Addressing systemic concentration of
power in “too big to fail” institutions; C) Raising wages for low-income
workers by a significant amount; and D) Expanding and strengthening the
government programs that constitute the social safety net. Just to begin
with! Patter about “growing the economy” and “creating jobs” “strengthening
small businesses” is meaningless campaign rhetoric mouthed by Democrats and
Republicans alike. What we really need to know is, does Hillary Clinton
actually have any proposals that might resemble something so gauche as an
ideal?

Once you scroll past the large amount of “I care about you, the average
worker” filler, the answer is: meh. Here are the things that could be
construed as real progressive economic proposals by Hillary Clinton**
(**Subject to change by 2016):

I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in
America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and
profits overseas.

Promising, but desperately vague.

You know, when we get Americans moving, we get our country moving. So let’s
establish an infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private
funds…channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads,
bridges and ports.

A new WPA? Perhaps? Who can tell?

Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days,
childcare are essential to our competitiveness and our growth. And we can
do this in a way that doesn’t impose unfair burdens on businesses,
especially small businesses.

Promising, but desperately vague.

So, we do have to raise the minimum wage, and implement President Obama’s
new rules on overtime, and then we have to go further. I will crack down on
bosses who exploit employees by mis- classifying them as contractors or
even steal their wages.

Raise the minimum wage by how much? Hillary Clinton does not say. And she
certainly does not say “I support the ongoing effort to raise the national
minimum wage to $15 an hour.” And the “crack down” she offers here amounts
to saying, “I will enforce current law.”

First, hard-working families need and deserve tax relief and
simplification. Second, those at the top have to pay their fair share.
That’s why I support the Buffet Rule, which makes sure millionaires do not
pay lower rates than their secretaries. I have called for closing the
carried interest loophole, that lets wealthy financiers pay an artificially
low rate.

Piss poor and lacking in specifics. The Buffet Rule is rather weak sauce
for a “progressive.” Closing the carried interest loophole, which would
make a relative handful of fantastically wealthy money managers pay more,
is good; raising the capital gains tax rate, which would compel millions of
investors to pay a fair tax rate, would be much better.

[Evidence] shows that the decline of unions may be responsible for a third
of the increase of inequality among men, so if we want to get serious about
raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers.

Promising, but desperately vague.

Over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans to rein in excessive
risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday
investors, not just high-frequency traders and those with the best or
fastest connections. I will appoint and empower regulators who understand
that too big to fail is still too big a problem. We will ensure that no
firm is too complex to manage or oversee. And we will also process
individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal
wrongdoing.

Promising, but desperately vague.

The rest of the speech was feel-good pap.

In essence, Hillary Clinton is asking America’s progressives to trust her.
She is offering sentiment without specifics. For the voting bloc that does
not have enough money to make campaign donations large enough to whisper in
Hillary Clinton’s ear, that is not going to be enough.

*Hillary Clinton vows crackdown on Wall Street risk-taking
<http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/45cf64e0-2977-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html#axzz3fnpMACv6>
// Financial Times // Megan Murphy – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton pledged to rein in risk-taking on Wall Street and to jail
executives found guilty of financial crimes, in a wide-ranging speech that
laid out a progressive agenda for boosting growth and wages that will form
the centrepiece of her 2016 presidential campaign.

Spelling out her vision of “Hillarynomics” at the New School in New York,
the Democratic frontrunner labelled raising the incomes of hard-working
Americans “the defining economic challenge of our time.”

In setting out a list of policy items to fuel stronger, more sustainable
economic growth, Mrs Clinton touched on many of the themes she has already
discussed on the campaign trail, including boosting women’s participation
in the labour force, encouraging companies to share their profits with
employees and prioritising early childhood education.

She singled out Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and several other
potential Republican rivals for touting policies she said have been shown
to entrench economic inequality, such as reducing taxes for the wealthy.

However, it was her promise to crack down on excessive risk in the
financial system, including across the so-called “shadow banking” sector,
and to appoint regulators that would take a tougher approach to executives
accused of criminal activity, that will probably energise the party’s
progressive wing, and cause minor tremors on Wall Street.

"Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial
industry are shocking," Mrs Clinton said. "HSBC allowing drug cartels to
launder money. Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for
conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be
no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behaviour."

Mrs Clinton, who has faced criticism for accepting hefty speaking fees and
financial support for her campaign from banks and hedge funds, said that
legislators may need to “go beyond’ the Dodd-Frank financial reforms she
accused Republicans of trying to unravel.

“Too big to fail is still too big a problem,” the former secretary of state
said. “Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex
and too risky.”

After a rocky start to her campaign, Mrs Clinton is hoping to draw a line
under a series of controversies and to refocus coverage on her message to
middle-class families. Facing a stronger-than-expected early challenge from
Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and self-described socialist who has
emerged as a favourite among the Democratic party’s liberal wing, aides
have been keen to stress Mrs Clinton’s commitment to progressive ideals and
her lengthy record on issues such as equal pay for women.

While Monday’s speech was light on specific policy detail, Mrs Clinton said
she would introduce proposals for overhauling the way capital gains are
taxed to incentivise job creation, increasing public-private investment and
encouraging companies to reward their employees more fairly.

“We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts up families and
lifts up our country,” she said. “That will be my mission from the first
day I’m president to the last.”

In a nod to the bitter battle her party recently waged against President
Barack Obama over his efforts to secure the authority to close the largest
trade deal of a generation, Mrs Clinton said officials needed to set a
“high bar” for trade agreements.

She reaffirmed her opposition to the so-called “carried interest” loophole
that allows private equity fund managers to pay a lower rate of tax on
their earnings. And she suggested that she would look for new ways to end
tax inversions, where US companies shift their domiciles abroad to take
advantage of lower tax rates.

She also lambasted a corporate culture she said was too focused on
immediate profit-taking and quarterly earnings reports instead of long-term
growth.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” she said.

*Millennial Shock: Hillary to Attack Uber, AirBnB, ‘Sharing Economy’
<http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/13/millennial-shock-hillary-to-attack-uber-airbnb-sharing-economy/>
// Breitbart // Joel Pollack – July 13, 2015 *

In a speech laying out her economic policy, Hillary Clinton is set to
attack companies like Uber and Airbnb in the “sharing economy” or
“contractor economy,” arguing that such companies undercut wages. Her
proposed alternative is to use government regulations to guide economic
activity. Previews of her speech have set off alarm bells in Silicon
Valley, and are sure to surprise millennial consumers, whose loyalty to the
Democratic Party has has largely been blind, and who have presumed that the
party of government shared their love for technology.

Politico’s Michael Grunwald delivered the preview of Clinton’s approach to
the sharing economy:

Clinton’s aide said she will discuss some of the structural forces
conspiring against sustainable wage growth, such as globalization,
automation, and even consumer-friendly “sharing economy” firms like Uber
and Airbnb that are creating new relationships between management and labor
(and which now employ many Obama administration alumni). But she will argue
that policy choices have contributed to the problem, and that she can fix
it.

Josh Constine of TechCrunch sighed: “As if Uber needed more enemies.” And
John Kartch of Forbes wrote:

Because her transportation is always taken care of, perhaps Clinton has
never bothered to talk to an Uber or Lyft driver and therefore doesn’t
understand that a flexible schedule is a top draw. Drivers take great pride
in being their own boss. Making their own schedule allows drivers to
balance family and work obligations. Drivers can take time to see their
kid’s Little League game, visit the doctor, get groceries or go to a job
interview.

Clinton’s expected assault on the sharing economy confirms that Big Labor
is still the dominant force in left-wing politics. Democrats have targeted
Uber and Airbnb with new regulations designed to protect entrenched
monopolies, despite the value the new companies create for their customers.

The sharing economy has also lowered the cost of living for millennials who
still crowd into Democrat-run cities. Attacking it means attacking them.
Clinton’s approach therefore creates an opportunity for her Republican
rivals to reach the elusive millennial vote.

As Breitbart News noted recently:

The entire “sharing” economy, which is at the heart of the new tech boom,
is in danger. “Millennials” in their 20s and 30s, who rely on the new
social networks to fulfill their basic needs–or to pay the rent–are
suddenly realizing that government is something other than “the name we
give to the things we choose to do together,” as former U.S. Rep. Barney
Frank said. On the contrary, government is often the name we give to what
one group of people does to another group by force of law.

In this case, the groups with their hands on the levers of power are
special interests–especially unions–to which, ironically, millennials are
aligned through their common support for the Democratic Party. Now,
tech-savvy voters are rubbing their eyes and wondering how it is that the
party that promised to reinvent government is, in fact, using government in
the most old-fashioned of ways, destroying innovation and competition to
protect the politically-connected donors who run things….

The crisis of the sharing economy has created a unique window of
opportunity for conservative leaders to reach out to the millennial
generation, which doesn’t know who it can trust anymore….Are there
presidential candidates who can explain how the best of what is new can be
reconciled with the best of what is old? And are there enough millennials
yet ready to listen–to “disrupt” themselves?

*In Economic Address, Hillary Clinton Threads the Needle
<http://www.newsweek.com/economic-address-clinton-threads-needle-353333> //
Newsweek // Taylor Wofford – July 13, 2015 *

Vowing to fight for "hard-working families" instead of "successful CEOs
and money managers," Hillary Clinton delivered the first major economic
address of her campaign Monday, offering a glimpse at policies she plans to
flesh out in coming weeks and hoping that her agenda will turn back any
threat posed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The venue for the speech was no accident. The New School in Manhattan has
been a citadel of progressive thought since the early 20th century. The
talk was the first of several policy addresses that the Democratic
front-runner plans to deliver in coming weeks, according to her campaign.

Clinton focused on jobs, growth and income inequality. The former New York
senator began by blasting "trickle-down economics"—the term Democrats have
used for Republican economic policies since Ronald Reagan was in the White
House.

"For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those
at the top, by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their
own rules, it will trickle down. It will trickle down to everyone else,"
she said, decrying the high deficits and untoward concentrations of wealth
that have been incurred during Republican turns in the White House.

Clinton offered a peek at economic policies that she plans to detail in
coming weeks, including tackling the economic threat posed by loose
regulation of the so-called shadow banking system, which includes hedge
funds and high-frequency traders. She also advocated increased
profit-sharing at corporations that would allow workers to benefit from
record-high profits. The former secretary of state also took aim at tax
rates on capital gains, urging a distinction between short-term and
long-term gains and vowing to work for tax reform that encourages long-term
investments and diminishes speculation.

While Clinton is feeling pressure from Sanders, the independent candidate
who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination, she took shots at
Republicans, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. "You may have
heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to work longer
hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers," Clinton said.

(At a campaign event in New Hampshire last week, Bush made comments
suggesting that in order to meet his ambitious goal of 4 percent annual
growth, Americans would need to put in longer hours. The Republican
front-runner's campaign clarified his remark, saying that it was aimed at
underemployed Americans who are seeking more work and can't find it.)

Still, Clinton wasn't accepting any qualification of Bush's remarks.
American workers, Clinton said, "don't need a lecture—they need a raise."
She also took aim at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on the day of his
formal entry into the presidential race, chiding his successful efforts to
limit the bargaining power of public employee unions.

Clinton also stressed the role women have to play in growing the economy.
"The United States used to rank seventh out of 24 advanced countries in
women's labor force participation. By 2013, we had dropped to 19th. That
represents a lot of unused potential for our economy and for American
families," she said. (Sanders rarely makes gender distinctions when he
makes his economic pitch.)

Paid family leave, earned sick days and child care are "essential to our
competitiveness," she added.

The closest Clinton came to disagreeing with Sanders, a self-proclaimed
democratic socialist, was when she described her policies as "clear-eyed
capitalism."

Sanders responded to Clinton's speech by reiterating his proposals,
including investing $1 trillion in infrastructure, raising the federal
minimum wage to $15 and breaking up the largest banks, a step Clinton
avoided proposing even as she allowed that financial institutions that are
"too big to fail" still represent a threat to the economy and promised to
appoint tough regulators.

*Hillary Clinton: 'Mission' to boost middle-class incomes
<http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/hillary-clinton-in-new-york-city-to-talk-about-economy-on-monday-1.10635268>
// Newsday // David Schwartz & Laura Figueroa – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton, in her first major economic address of the 2016
presidential campaign, said Monday she will make it her "mission" to raise
incomes for middle class Americans.

"We must raise income for hardworking Americans so they can afford a
middle-class life," Clinton said in a speech at the New School in Manhattan.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy," Clinton said.
"You can't have one with out the other."

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, was expected to
emphasize policies that would focus on the middle class. Other Democratic
primary opponents, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have appealed to
the Democratic base by criticizing rising income equality.

Her campaign said the speech would outline proposals "for an economy that
grows faster, fairer and more sustainably so that everyday Americans can
get ahead and stay ahead."

Republicans on Sunday criticized her positions as traditional "big
government" proposals that would exacerbate the income divide.

"Bigger government creates crony capitalism," Carly Fiorina, a former chief
executive at Hewlett-Packard, said on ABC's "This Week." Fiorina said the
current tax code, for example, benefitted large corporations over small
businesses.

Clinton last month announced her candidacy on Roosevelt Island, invoking
the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and highlighting economic
prosperity, to launch a new phase of her presidential campaign. Since then,
Sanders has attracted large crowds in early primary and caucus voting
states.

*The era of small government is over: Hillary tacks left, while the right
trots out bankrupt arguments
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/13/the_era_of_small_government_is_over_hillary_tacks_left_while_the_right_trots_out_bankrupt_arguments/>
// Salon // Simon Maloy – July 13, 2015 *

This morning Hillary Clinton will deliver her first big economic policy
speech of the 2016 campaign, and all indications are that she will embrace
full communism. Hillary’s strong position in the polls notwithstanding, she
still has to keep an eye on two Democratic rivals making plays for the
restive liberal base of the party: Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
Sanders has amassed an impressive share of the Democratic electorate by
running hard to the left on economic issues: single-payer healthcare,
expanding Social Security, breaking up big banks, etc. O’Malley doesn’t
have anywhere near the support that Sanders does, but he’s cranking out
white papers on topics like climate change and bank regulation that are
laying down markers for the 2016 policy fight.

And so with two competitors running hard to the left, Hillary wants to grab
herself a slice of that liberal enthusiasm. Her big speech “kicking off”
her campaign last month laid out some of the broad economic themes she’ll
run on: higher wages, reducing economic inequality, clean energy and so
forth. The speech today will put a tiny bit of policy meat on those bones.
Hillary’s advisers gave a preview of what she’ll propose to the New York
Times:

Her most ambitious ideas, which her advisers say are designed to help
families, include prekindergarten for all 4-year-olds, expanded access to
child care, paid sick days and paid family leave, helping to make college
students “as debt free as possible,” a higher minimum wage, company
profit-sharing for employees, legal protections for people in country
illegally, and more financing for medical research.

Universal prekindergarten alone could cost tens of billions of dollars over
the next decade, according to outside advisers to Mrs. Clinton.

As the last sentence of that block quote indicates, Hillary’s policy
platform is already being framed in terms of cost to the taxpayer – the
lede of the Times article characterizes her agenda as “muscular federal
policies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending
and markedly expand Washington’s influence in a host of areas.” And, of
course, when a Democrat proposes an expansion of federal programs to aid
the poor and working class, there’s a quick assumption that the increase in
spending will be controversial and a ripe target for attack by Republicans.
Again, from the Times:

The question is whether the lofty vision she is articulating as a candidate
for the Democratic nomination is one that can be turned into a mandate if
she is elected president.

“The problem for Hillary is that the country itself isn’t hungering for
liberalism,” said Jeremy Mayer, an associate professor of politics at
George Mason University. “Republicans will be well positioned to say to
Hillary, ‘Great, and how are you going to pay for that?’”

This is so frustrating. I don’t know if Hillary is going to use the speech
to get into the funding mechanisms for all these programs, though I assume
it involves some combination of raising taxes on rich people, closing
various loopholes, and eliminating some deductions. But why should we
automatically assume that Republicans will have the better of her when it
comes to spending?

A quick perusal of the tax plans put forth by some of the GOP candidates
shows that they don’t really have too much credibility to criticize the (as
yet unknown) price tag of Hillary’s policy proposals. Rand Paul’s tax plan,
which calls for a complete elimination of our current progressive tax
structure in favor of a 14.5 percent flat tax, would cost the government a
gobsmacking $15 trillion in revenue over its first decade, according to
Citizens for Tax Justice. Even when you goose the numbers with a hefty dose
of dynamic scoring, as the right-leaning Tax Foundation did, the Paul plan
still ends up costing nearly $1 trillion over ten years. Marco Rubio’s tax
plan, which combines massive tax cuts for the rich with an expansion of the
child tax credit, would cost $4 trillion over the same time period, and
“even if you assume that the plan results in a large amount of economic
growth and thus a reflow of revenue from the large economy, the plan will
still increase the debt by 8 percent in the next decade.” Rubio also wants
to vastly expand the military budget at the same time that he’s starving
the government of revenue.

These are common themes among most of the Republican candidates – slash tax
revenues dramatically while boosting funding for the military, all the
while promising to make up the gargantuan costs with unspecified cuts
elsewhere in the budget. A candidate whose tax policy calls for an
unpaid-for, multitrillion-dollar giveaway to America’s wealthy can’t also
claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility to attack a Democrat’s proposed
expansion of social programs. But just as we’re conditioned to treat wildly
irresponsible Republican and conservative tax plans as the norm, we seem to
reflexively grant Republicans an edge when it comes to issues of government
spending. I look forward to hearing what Hillary has in mind, and I hope
she does explain how she’ll pay for what she’s proposing. But let’s not
presume that she’s already put herself at a political disadvantage.

*The Best Quotes From Hillary Clinton's Speech That Outlined Her Seriously
Feminist Economic Vision
<http://www.bustle.com/articles/96785-the-best-quotes-from-hillary-clintons-speech-that-outlined-her-seriously-feminist-economic-vision>
// Bustle // Josephine Yurcaba – July 13, 2015 *

In a speech Monday morning, 2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton
outlined her goals for the American economy. Clinton spoke at the New
School in New York City about her vision, which includes raising median
incomes, using policy to raise wages and reduce income inequality, and
working, specifically, to raise pay for women across the U.S., according to
the Washington Post. Some of the best quotes from Clinton’s speech on the
economy show that she understands the fundamental connection between
economic disparities and social inequalities, which good policy can help
change.

“I’ve had the opportunity to listen to Americans’ concerns about an economy
that still isn’t delivering for them the way it should,” Clinton said when
she started the speech, according to her Twitter account. She talked about
how Americans are working harder — they’re working longer hours and
producing more for their employers — but their wages aren’t going up.

Clinton also pointed out that Republican policies are consistently the
same, and they only help to worsen income inequality: Republicans want to
cut taxes for the rich, loosen regulations on financial industries, break
up unions and other organizations that provide protections for workers, and
restrict public investments, according to her Twitter. Clinton said those
policies have failed, and it’s time to try something brand new — like
raising the minimum wage, for starters.

*Clinton: Why training for the new economy is key
<http://www.wired.com/2015/07/clinton-training-new-economy-key/> // Wired
// Issie Lapowsky – July 13, 2015 *

Following similar comments made by President Obama, Hillary Clinton says
that in order to ensure technology is creating jobs—and not displacing
them—the country needs more training programs that can funnel low-income
Americans into the tech-driven workforce.

“In an age of technological change, we need to provide pathways to get
skills and credentials for new occupations and create online platforms to
connect workers to jobs,” she said in a speech on economic policy in New
York City today. “There are exciting efforts underway, and I want to
support and scale the ones that show results.”

Those programs will be critical to lowering the youth unemployment rate,
she said, in which some 6 million Americans between 16 and 24 years old are
neither currently working nor in school. That unemployment rate is
especially high among young black and Hispanic people. Training plays a
role in helping people secure those jobs, but Clinton said we must also
ensure that even as technology eliminates the need for some jobs, there are
enough new ones to take their place.

“The best antipoverty program is a job, but that’s hard to say if there
aren’t enough jobs for people to help lift themselves out of poverty,”
Clinton said.

To increase the number of available jobs, the former Secretary of State
laid out a plan to offer businesses $1,500 in tax credits for every
employee they hire and train.

*Hillary Clinton Will Crack Down On Contractor Economy
<http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hillary-clinton-gig-economy/> // Wired //
Issie Lopowsky – July 13, 2015 *

ADD HILLARY CLINTON to the list of labor advocates coming after the gig
economy.

In her first major speech outlining her economic platform today at New York
City’s New School, the Democratic presidential candidate vowed to crack
down on “bosses misclassifying workers as contractors.” The promise seemed
to come in direct response to the wave of legal action that’s been taken
against companies like Uber recently, which argue that drivers should be
compensated as employees.

Clinton, who emphasized the need to raise wages throughout her speech, said
that businesses that allow people to make extra money by renting a spare
room or driving their own car can often threaten solid labor practices.
“This on demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities
and unleashing innovation,” she said, “but it’s also raising hard questions
about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the
future.”

*Hillary Clinton Says On-Demand Economy Raises Hard Questions About
Workplace Protections
<http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/13/what-will-a-good-job-look-like-in-the-future/>
// TechCrunch // Josh Constine – July 13, 2015 *

“This on-demand, or so-called ‘gig economy’, is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation. But it’s also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future” Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in a speech today
outlining her economic policy. You can rewatch the talk on C-Span here.

Clinton was referring to companies like Uber that are built on armies of
independent contractors. She prefaced the statement noting that the country
and Wall Street are thinking too much about short-term financial returns.
She said “Meanwhile, many Americans are making extra money renting out a
spare room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at
home, or even driving their own car.”

Clinton SpeechWhile these workers get scheduling flexibility and the
freedom to do other jobs, they don’t get benefits and may not have the same
long-term career opportunities. Some prefer being their own boss, but some
want the extra protection of full-time positions. There may be an
opportunity for policies that give workers themselves the choice.

At the talk at The New School in Manhattan, Clinton laid out her plan to
strengthen wages and build up the middle class. Her stance on contract
workers came as part of her push to foster good paying jobs. That’s one
part of her three-pronged strategy that also includes balancing out
inequality and a focus on long-term over short-term thinking for businesses.

Clinton accused some employers of “wage theft” through the way they treat
contractors. She says “I’ll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by
misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.” Clinton
cited “Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick
days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.” These
are the workplace protections that contractors lack.

However, her camp tells me Clinton sees this issue as having arisen well
before the on-demand economy, and she views a crack down of enforcement as
a distinct issue. Specifically, her campaign says that Clinton has not made
a definitive statement about how Uber drivers should be classified, and I
was told not to expect one soon. Instead, Clinton is thinking strategically
about how to develop policies that protect all types of workers but that
are relevant to the future and don’t stifle innovation.

Also relevant to the tech sector, Clinton denounced quarterly capitalism.
Speaking on behalf of business leaders she’s spoken to, Clinton said “They
say everything’s focused on the next earnings report or the short-term
share price. The result is too little attention on the sources of long-term
growth: research and development, physical capital, and talent.

“Some of our biggest companies have spent almost half their earnings to buy
back their own stock, and another third or more to pay dividends. That
doesn’t leave a lot left to raise pay or invest in the workers or make new
investments to ensure a company’s future success” Clinton said. “These
trends need to change.”

The question now is what concrete changes Clinton would like to see
regarding contractor classifications, workplace protections, and reporting
requirements for public companies to build what she calls “a growth and
fairness economy.”

*Hillary Clinton takes aim at Uber economy in speech*
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/watch-out-uber-hillary-clinton-to-rip-sharing-economy-in-speech-2015-07-13>*
// Market Watch // Robert Schroeder – July 13, 2015*

Uber was the elephant in the room when Hillary Clinton gave her
economic-policy speech on Monday, as the Democrats’ leading presidential
contender called out the “gig economy.”

In a major campaign speech in New York City, the former secretary of state
didn’t mention the ride-sharing service by name. But it was pretty clear
what sort of companies she was talking about when she got to how some
Americans earn money.

“Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing
websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving
their own car,” she said at the New School.

But that sort of work comes with its own problems, she said.

“This ‘on demand’ or so-called ‘gig economy’ is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it’s also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future,” Clinton added.

As Mashable notes, her remarks came as startups like Uber and its
competitor Lyft are under mounting scrutiny for classifying drivers as
independent contractors rather than part-time or full-time employees,
entitled to health-care benefits, sick time and paid time off.

*Hillary Clinton tackles Republican rivals head-on in economic speech
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/13/hillary-clinton-republicans-economic-policy>
// Guardian // Sabrina Siddiqui – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton pledged to fight for higher wages and lift the American
middle class on Monday, in a speech that outlined her economic agenda and
saw the Democratic presidential candidate take a more aggressive tone
towards her Republican rivals.

Speaking at the New School in Greenwich Village, a New York university
known for its progressive worldview, Clinton placed income inequality and
improving the conditions of everyday Americans at the heart of her pitch to
grow the economy and increase wages.

“I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” she said. “You
can’t have one without the other.

“We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a
middle-class life. We must drive strong and steady income growth that lifts
up families and lifts up our country. That will be my mission from the
first day I’m president to the last.”

To alleviate the financial burden on middle-class Americans, Clinton
emphasized policies such as paid family leave, lowering childcare costs,
passing equal pay for women and raising the minimum wage.

Signalling a willingness to play offense against Republicans, she called
out three Republican candidates who are seen as the leaders in a crowded
presidential field: Jeb Bush, on workers, Marco Rubio, on taxes, and Scott
Walker on unions.

Invoking Bush’s recent comments that Americans need to “work longer hours”
– a clumsy statement that drew immediate scrutiny from Democrats and the
media – Clinton sought to portray the former Florida governor as out of
touch.

“Well, he must not have met many American workers,” she said. “They don’t
need a lecture, they need a raise.”

Clinton also described a tax plan proposed by Rubio, a senator from
Florida, as “a sure, budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy”.

Alex Conant, a spokesman for Rubio, responded to Clinton’s jab by saying
the former secretary of state “wants to take us back to yesterday”.

“We cannot raise taxes like the 1990s or increase spending like the 2000s,”
Conant said in an email to the Guardian. “Marco is proposing a 21st-century
tax plan that would benefit all Americans, especially middle-class
families.”

Of Walker, the anti-union Wisconsin governor who formally launched his
presidential campaign on Monday, Clinton said she would fight back against
the “mean-spirited, misguided attacks” on workers waged by him and other
Republican chief executives.

“Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names stomping on
workers’ rights,” Clinton said.

The Bush campaign hit back with a statement that characterized her
proposals as “antiquated”.

“Hillary Clinton is proposing the same failed policies we have seen in the
Obama economy, where the typical American household’s income has declined
and it’s harder for businesses to hire and the middle class to achieve
rising incomes,” Allie Brandenburger, a Bush spokeswoman, said in a
statement.

“Americans want to work and want the opportunity to achieve earned success
for their families, but Secretary Clinton’s antiquated proposals protect
the special interests that want to stifle American ingenuity and
21st-century companies like Uber that are creating jobs. Governor Bush
believes harnessing innovation and fostering technology can help us grow at
4% once again.”

Clinton’s tough talk was not reserved just for Republicans – sounding ever
the progressive, the former first lady also vowed to go after individuals
and corporations on Wall Street that run afoul of the law.

“Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too
risky and the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the
headlines,” she said, adding that she would appoint bank regulators who
recognized that “too big to fail is still too big a problem”.

“There can be no justification or tolerance,” she said, for criminal
behavior, committing to going beyond the 2010 Wall Street reform
legislation known as Dodd-Frank.

Clinton faces a primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, an independent
senator from Vermont who is running for president as a Democrat and is a
vocal critic of Wall Street. Although Clinton struck a firm tone on the
financial services industry, she remained measured – citing her role as a
former senator from New York to point out that she knows “first-hand the
role Wall Street can and should play in the economy”.

Clinton said she would later introduce in more detail her plans to boost
the economy and reform the tax code – including a proposal to reform
capital gains taxes – to increase the minimum wage, boost infrastructure
investment and establish universal preschool.

In conclusion, Clinton added a personal touch to summarize her approach to
steering the economy. “Maybe it’s the grandmother in me,” Clinton said, but
“leadership is planting trees under whose shade you will never sit.”

*Hillary Clinton knows: the real face of low labor force participation is
female
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/13/hillary-clinton-labor-force-women-parents>
// Guardian // Jessica Valenti – July 13, 2015 *

When we think about stay-at-home moms, the most common image is one of
cheerful suburban women shuttling kids off to soccer games and packing bag
lunches: women who choose to be at home instead of at work. But the truth
is far thornier, with many women at home not because they want to be, but
because they have to be – something to which Hillary Clinton seemed attuned
as she called for more women in the workforce on Monday as part of her
economic vision for the future.

Clinton has been pushing left on work-life issues, so it was no surprise
that she cited family leave, closing the wage gap and access to affordable,
quality childcare as key to a building a stronger economy and narrowing
gender inequalities. But Clinton also said she wants more women working in
the public sphere, saying: “we can’t afford to leave talent on the
sidelines.”

She continued: “The United States used to rank seventh out of 24 advanced
countries in women’s labor force participation. By 2013, we’d dropped to
19th. That represents a lot of unused potential for our economy and
American families.”

To prioritize putting more women in the workforce shouldn’t be
controversial. But in a culture that still tells women that the most
important job title they’ll ever hold is “mother” – and with Republicans at
the ready to skewer anyone who hints at anything but pure reverence for
women who stay at home – Clinton’s message is actually quite subversive. By
plainly saying that she wants more women at work, the presidential hopeful
is taking on the American fantasy that the majority of stay-at-home moms
are there by choice.

While some moms who stay home to take care of children may label this
decision as a choice, we can’t really call it such when the alternative may
be spending an exorbitant amount of money on childcare. The long-held
notion that stay-at-home moms are highly educated women who simply “opted
out” of high-powered and well-paid careers is largely a myth.

According to a 2014 Pew study, a third of stay-at-home moms live in
poverty, and 70% of single stay-at-home moms live below the poverty level.
And nearly half of women who stay at home with children have a high school
diploma or less. As Bryce Covert wrote last year: “these financial
hardships and barriers are likely part of why a growing share of
stay-at-home mothers are out of the workforce because they can’t find a
job.” (Why it’s always women’s salaries that are considered expendable for
the family good is a whole different story.)

It’s not just mothers who are out of work, of course. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the labor participation rate of men over
20 years old is about 72%, it’s only 58% for women. The face of unemployed
Americans is a distinctly female one.

In her speech, Clinton said: “We should be making it easier for Americans
to be both good workers and good parents and caregivers.” Part of doing
that is, as Clinton laid out, ensuring equal pay, fair family leave and
affordable childcare. But it’s also dismantling the myth that women would
largely rather be at home than at work. Yes, we love our children. And many
of us moms do want more flexibility and family leave. But we also want to
get paid, and we want real choices.

Women are a necessary and vital part of the workforce whose contribution to
the public good goes beyond raising children. And as Clinton said, these
are not just “women’s issues.” They’re American ones.

*Clinton unveils economic plan, calls for corporate profit sharing
<http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-economy-speech/>
// USA Today // David Jackson – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled her economic
program Monday, including a call for corporations to share more profits
with employees in a bid to increase take-home pay.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton said during an address in New York
City.

Higher wages and salaries are keys to revving up the economy, Clinton said,
as she outlined plans to generate economic growth, further regulate Wall
Street excesses and promote opportunity for more women.

“I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” she said at one
point. “You can’t have one without the other.”

The former secretary of state, New York senator, and first lady also called
out Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott
Walker while denouncing GOP-style tax-cut “trickle-down” economics that
favor the wealthy.

In slamming Bush for his comment that people need to “work more hours” to
help the economy grow, Clinton said that the former Florida governor
obviously hasn’t spoken to many actual workers. “They don’t need a
lecture,” Clinton said. “They need a raise.”

Bush said he was referring to the need for part-time workers to get
full-time jobs, an aspiration made more difficult by the kinds of
government regulations supported by Clinton and Democrats.

Allie Brandenburger, a Bush spokesperson, said that Clinton “is proposing
the same failed policies we have seen” during President Obama’s tenure.

“Secretary Clinton’s antiquated proposals protect the special interests
that want to stifle American ingenuity and 21st Century companies like Uber
that are creating jobs,” she said.

The Democratic candidate also criticized Walker, the governor of Wisconsin
who is kicking off his campaign today, saying he is anti-union. Walker says
he acted to protect taxpayers.

Clinton said her economic strategy — including equal pay legislation — will
tap the under-utilized contributions of women. She drew perhaps her biggest
applause with the line, “it’s way past time to end the outrage of so many
women still earning less than men on the job — and women of color making
even less.”

A pro-family, pro-growth agenda also includes paid leave, affordable child
care, earned sick days, and flexible scheduling, she said.

Clinton also called for more regulations of Wall Street financial
practices, saying too many firms continue to abuse the system. She said
that “too big to fail is still too big a problem,” and that abusers of the
financial system should be criminally prosecuted.

*Hillary Clinton Boosts Workers, Blasts Uber
<http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-boosts-workers-blasts-uber>
// US News // Tim Risen – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is out to boost labor rights at companies like Uber, a move
that may resonate with some voters but could alienate small-business owners.

The leading Democratic presidential contender on Monday took a thinly
veiled swipe at Uber, which is facing scrutiny for classifying its drivers
as independent contractors instead of employees – a practice Clinton called
“wage theft” during a speech at the New School in New York City.

“This ‘on demand’ or so-called ‘gig' economy is creating exciting
opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it’s also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in
the future,” Clinton said, vowing to "crack down on bosses misclassifying
workers as contractors.”

Clinton called for businesses to expand many benefits, including "fair pay
and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days,” but insisted
that it could be done without causing prices to rise too steeply.

“We can do this in a way that doesn’t impose unfair burdens on businesses
-- especially small businesses,” Clinton said of her proposals.

Independent contractors are not eligible for the same benefits or
protections as full-time or even part-time employees, which means they
often miss out on things like overtime pay or access to health or life
insurance. Uber is facing lawsuits from former drivers who seek employee
benefits including expense accounts to cover routine costs, like buying gas
for the cars they drive for the company.

Uber has “hundreds of thousands of driver partners and millions of riders”
but only “more than 3,000 worldwide employees,” a spokeswoman for the
company tells U.S. News.

Clinton’s call for greater employee benefits may resonate with workers at
sharing economy sites like Uber, Lyft or food delivery application
Postmates. But adding benefits could have adverse effects, forcing
businesses to raise prices, cut back services or trim jobs, says Joe
Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation think tank.

“There is political pressure trying to makes sure the company doesn’t make
too much,” Kennedy says. “All that risks the tremendous value the consumer
gets.” Also at risk: public opinion. “Anything that crimps Uber too much
would be opposed by younger voters,” Kennedy says.

The global sharing economy, much of which is based in the U.S., is
currently worth approximately $15 billion and forecast to be valued at $335
billion by 2025, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which
listed affordability and convenience as key lures for its growing base of
consumers.

Other businesses -- including trucking, construction and cleaning services
-- also rely on contractors, says David Rosenfeld, a union counsel at the
law firm of Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.

“When you use contractors you don’t have to pay taxes on them – you don’t
have to provide workers compensation, you don’t have to worry about
discrimination lawsuits, you don’t have to worry about union issues, and
you don’t have to pay overtime,” he says. “The disincentive of using
contractors is that you lose the right to tell them how to work, how to
behave, how to dress. You lose control of your brand that you would have
with employees.”

Not all companies may react negatively to Clinton's call for more worker
benefits, however. Rosenfeld points out that her point of view could even
re-energize the union vote among Democrats.

“This will create a split in the business community since there are some
who like the model of employment, although there are benefits to using
contractors,” says Rosenfeld, who is also a lecturer at the University of
California-Berkeley School of Law. “If unions get out and get their members
and their families to vote it makes a difference. Obama really only paid
lip service for unions and didn’t rally support the way Hillary Clinton
could.”

*Clinton Proposes ‘Fairness’ Economy, Swats Republicans
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-proposes-growth-and-fairness-economy-swats-republicans>
// US News // David Catanese – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said Monday her presidency would be dedicated to building
an economy that lifts wages for middle-class Americans, but left many
details of her broadly outlined platform for another day.

Instead, her speech at The New School in Manhattan sought to draw a sharp
distinction with her top Republican opponents and assure liberals that she
will prioritize the issues of economic inequality and Wall Street
profiteering in her 2016 campaign.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy," Clinton said.
"The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hardworking
families, not just CEOs and middle managers."

Among the laundry list of Clinton's bare-boned economic proposals: Closing
loopholes rewarding companies that send jobs and profits overseas,
encouraging companies to profit-share with their employees, mandating paid
leave for parents with newborn children and providing tax credits to
companies that train and hire workers.te

She also pledged tax relief for small businesses and capital gains tax
reform, and swiped at a plan by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., without lending
details of her own.

Clinton claimed that Rubio would slash rates for those making $3 million,
which she categorized as "a sure budget-busting giveaway to the super
wealthy."

Rubio wasn't the only Republican on the receiving end of a broadside from
Clinton.

She also swatted Jeb Bush for his remark last week in New Hampshire saying
Americans should "work longer hours" to help grow the economy.

"He must not have met very many American workers," Clinton said. "Let him
say that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the teacher who is
in that classroom, or the trucker who drives all night. They don't need a
lecture, they need a raise."

Bush, through a spokeswoman, noted that household income has declined
through the current presidential administration – which Clinton was a part
of – and deemed Clinton's solutions "antiquated proposals ... that want to
stifle American ingenuity."

In a nod to the importance of unions, a crucial Democratic Party
constituency, Clinton also took on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is
kicking off his presidential campaign Monday.

She accused Walker of making his name by "stomping on workers' rights" with
"mean-spirited, misguided attacks."

"If we want to be serious about raising incomes, we have to support
unions," she said.

Clinton also rehashed her commitment to policies she's previously advocated
for, like a higher minimum wage, equal pay for women in the workplace and
comprehensive immigration reform.

"Bringing millions of hardworking people into the formal economy would
increase our gross domestic product $700 billion over 10 years," she
estimated.

In this Jan. 23, 2014, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on
Capitol Hill in Washington before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in
Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other
Americans. Senior Obama administration officials, including the White House
chief of staff, knew as early as 2009 that Hillary Rodham Clinton was using
a private email address for her government correspondence, according to
some 3,000 pages of correspondence released by the State Department late
Tuesday night, June 20, 2015. But it's unclear whether the officials
realized Clinton, now the leading Democratic presidential candidate, was
running her email from a server located in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., a
potential security risk and violation of administration policy.

She set a goal of providing high-quality pre-school access to every
4-year-old within a decade.

"Quality affordable childcare is not a luxury, it's a growth strategy," she
said.

To address the excesses of Wall Street – an area where liberals continue to
be skeptical about Clinton – the former New York senator said she would
implement policies to incentivize financial firms to think about long-term
growth, rather than "quarterly capitalism."

"We also have to go beyond Dodd-Frank," Clinton said, referring to the
financial reforms implemented by President Barack Obama. And she
acknowledged that "too big to fail is still too big a problem."

But again, she was light on specifics on how far she was willing to go,
simply promising more consequences for leaders of firms who skirt the rules.

In this final section of the speech, a protester began to yell, "Senator
Clinton, will you restore Glass-Stegall?"

That's the 1933 banking act that separated commercial and investment
banking. It was repealed under her husband's administration in 1999, and
critics say the move was partly responsible for the financial meltdown that
occurred a decade later.

The crowd cheered as the protester was ejected from the auditorium. Clinton
just smiled.

*Hillary Clinton takes aim at Jeb Bush, and at America’s falling rate of
participation in the workforce
<http://qz.com/451921/hillary-clinton-takes-aim-at-jeb-bush-and-at-americas-falling-rate-of-participation-in-the-workforce/>
// Quartz // Tim Fernholz – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton laid out her economic agenda as a battle to raise the
incomes of average Americans, and didn’t hesitate to slam her Republican
rivals for the US presidency—in some cases by name—over their ideas for
jumpstarting the economy.

“The measure of success must be how much incomes rise for hard-working
families,” the former US secretary of state told an audience in New York,
“and not some arbitrary growth target untethered to people’s lives and
livelihoods.”

That was a not-so-subtle dig at former Florida governor and Republican
presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who has said that as president he would
make 4% economic growth his target, despite the historical difficulty of
achieving that goal:

While Bush has yet to outline his agenda fully, he has said that he wants
Americans to work more, despite the fact that they already work quite a bit
and that working more hours doesn’t solve the US productivity problem. “He
must not have met very many American workers,” Clinton joked, saying that
American workers “don’t need a lecture, they need a raise.”

But if Clinton wouldn’t advise that people work more, she would at least
like to see more people working. Participation in the US workforce has
fallen in recent years, and less overall work in the country means less
production—and less growth.

In particular, Clinton emphasized a desire to bring more women into the
workforce. The flood of women entering the workforce in the latter half of
the last century boosted growth, but the US, one of the few advanced
countries without paid family leave, has fallen to 17th in the OECD’s
ranking of female labor participation.

Clinton argued that the country needs better family-leave policies so that
working women can be confident that a career won’t stand between their—and
their partner’s—ability to care for their family; this would likely result
in more women working over the course of their adult lifetime, and thus
more prosperity in the US.

The policy may seem counter-intuitive—give more time off to get more
overall work—but it has empirical backing. The political challenge will be
convincing businesses to share the near-term costs of such a policy before
the long-term benefits kick in.

This idea fits with the broad theme of Clinton’s speech, discussing a
problem that “didn’t start with the recession, and it didn’t end with the
recovery,” as fundamental trends in the economy toward skilled labor and
flexible jobs have changed the traditional calculus for workers.

Those changes, and the anxieties they’ve caused for many Americans, will be
at the forefront of the debate over domestic policy in the long campaign
ahead.

*Hillary Clinton: Here’s how I’d run the economy
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0713/Hillary-Clinton-Here-s-how-I-d-run-the-economy>
// CS Monitor // Peter Grief – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton wants you to know that her vision for the US economy is
different from Jeb Bush’s, Marco Rubio’s, and Scott Walker’s. Oh, and
Bernie Sanders’s, too.

That’s a bottom line from Democratic front-runner Clinton’s big Monday
speech about American workers, opportunity, and US business. Aides billed
it as a kickoff address meant to set the former secretary of State apart
from all her rivals in the race for 2016.

Her theme? As the shadow of the Great Recession continues to recede, the
United States needs a “growth and fairness” approach to get the economy
moving again full-speed.

Recommended: How much do you know about Hillary Rodham Clinton? Take our
quiz.

“We can’t create enough jobs and new businesses without more growth, and we
can’t build strong families and support our consumer economy without more
fairness. We need both, because while America is standing again, we’re not
yet running the way we should,” she said in New York.

Mrs. Clinton took on the major Republican contenders by name. She hit Mr.
Bush for his comment from last week that Americans need to “work more
hours," saying that he must not have met many American workers.

“Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the
trucker who drives all night. Let him tell that to the fast-food workers
marching in the streets for better pay. They don’t need a lecture – they
need a raise,” said Clinton.

(Bush has said that what he really meant was that part-time workers need
the opportunity to work more hours if they want.)

She criticized Senator Rubio’s tax plan as a “budget-busting giveaway to
the super-wealthy." As for Governor Walker, she took aim at his attempts to
curtail the power of public-sector unions.

“Evidence shows that the decline of unions may be responsible for a third
of the increase of inequality among men. So if we want to get serious about
raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting workers,” Clinton
said.

In contrast, Clinton did not mention Senator Sanders’s name. But she drew
some lines that seemed intended to compare-and-contrast her economic plan
with the beliefs of the rival who’s running to her left.

For instance, she talked about the need to confront Wall Street, as Sanders
does, but she did not use his harsh language or endorse some of his more
extreme proposals, such as breaking up big banks. Similarly, she backed an
increase in the minimum wage, but without attaching a dollar figure,
leaving herself some margin for maneuver.

Perhaps most important, she brought gender into her discussion of family
needs. That’s not Sanders’s way of framing inequality. As Amber Phillips of
"The Fix" political blog at The Washington Post notes, white liberal men
are Sanders’s core supporters.

Clinton used a substantial portion of her speech to talk about the burdens
women carry in the US economy as they try to balance family and work lives.
Fair pay, flexible scheduling, paid family leave, earned sick days, and
child care “are essential to our competitiveness and growth," she said.

The growing participation of women in the labor force in the US has
stalled, said Clinton. That’s a lot of unused potential for the economy and
US families, she said.

“Women who want to work should be able to do so without worrying every day
about how they’re going to take care of their children or what will happen
if a family member gets sick,” Clinton said.

Does Clinton want to force women to join the workforce? Of course not,
writes Ramesh Ponnuru of the right-leaning National Review in a post
critical of Clinton’s speech.

But Bush, with his “work more hours” line, wasn’t pushing Americans to work
harder, either. He was just talking about opening up opportunity for those
who want it, according to Mr. Ponnuru.

“If it’s fair game to distort his words, it’s fair game for the Republicans
to say: Hey, Secretary Clinton, the stay-at-home moms of America don’t need
a lecture from you,” he writes.

*Hillary Clinton’s answer to the wage gap: Profit-sharing?
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0713/Hillary-Clinton-s-answer-to-the-wage-gap-Profit-sharing>
// CS Monitor // Jessica Mendoza – July 13, 2015 *

Jobs and the economy remain the most critical issues for candidates of the
2016 elections, and on Monday Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary
Clinton will reveal how she plans to address them.

The former US senator and secretary of State is set to give her first major
speech on economic policy on Monday at the progressive New School in New
York City’s Greenwich Village. In it she will emphasize middle-class
incomes and wages, as well as detail what she calls a “win-win” plan to
encourage profit-sharing between companies and their employees, her
campaign said Monday.

Mrs. Clinton will also call for changing the tax code to help workers
benefit, increasing investment in infrastructure projects, boosting the
power of unions, and lowering costs of health care. She will also advocate
for raising the federal minimum wage.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” Clinton will say, according to excerpts of
the speech obtained by Bloomberg.

Greater corporate profit-sharing “will be good for workers and good for
business,” because “studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake
in a company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into
employees’ pockets,” Clinton is expected to say. “It’s a win-win.”

The speech, a product of consultation withmore than 200 domestic policy
experts over the course of several months, is part of Clinton’s bid to
define herself against rivals in her party – particularly Vermont
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Both candidates have tried to position themselves to the left of Clinton:
Sen. Sanders has been working “to ignite a grassroots fire among
left-leaning Democrats” who may be wary of Clinton, the Associated
Press reportedin May, while Mr. O’Malley shot to the spotlight early in
July with his open letter against what he called the “too-big-to-prosecute
and too-big-to-jail” megabanks on Wall Street.

All three candidates have also been actively wooing Hispanic officials and
labor groups – an effort that for Clinton bore fruit Saturday, when she
received the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers union,
which represents more than 1.6 million teachers and school personnel
nationwide.

Clinton’s New York address is also meant to portray her Republican
opponents as beholden to tax cuts and quick fixes that will fail to
revitalize stagnating incomes.

GOP candidates have tried to portray Clinton as out of touch with the
electorate she is courting, and said her policies are simply a prescription
for a bigger government role in the economy.

“What I will continue to point out is the fact that every policy she is
pursuing will make income inequality worse, not better – crony capitalism
even worse, not better,” Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett Packard chief
executive officer and Republican presidential hopeful, said on ABC’s “This
Week” Sunday. “And meanwhile, we will continue to crush the businesses that
create jobs and middle class families.”

Clinton also got into a Twitter tiff with former Florida governor Jeb Bush
after Mr. Bush suggested that Americans need to work more hours to increase
economic growth.

“Anyone who believes Americans aren't working hard enough hasn't met enough
American workers,” Clinton posted on the social media site.

Bush shot back: “Anyone who discounts 6.5 million people stuck in part-time
work & seeking full-time jobs hasnt listened to working Americans.”

*Hillary Clinton Unveils Economic Agenda, but Can’t Shake Wall Street
Questions
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-unveils-economic-agenda-but-can-t-shake-wall-street-questions-20150713>
// National Journal // Emma Roller – July 13, 2015 *

When New School President David Van Zandt introduced Hillary Clinton on
Monday, he made an inadvertent joke.

After Van Zandt said, "the New School does not endorse any particular
candidate for political office," knowing laughter and clapping broke out in
the audience. The New School has a proudly liberal history, thus making it
a well-scouted venue for Clinton to give a populist speech about her
economic platform.

In her speech, Clinton proposed three prongs for her economic policies:
strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. What that looks like in
policy terms: raising wages (especially for women), boosting participation
in the workforce, encouraging profit-sharing for firms' employees, and
deploying so-called "empowerment zones" to encourage growth in downtrodden
cities. If that last one sounds familiar, it's because another
candidate—Sen. Rand Paul—has already proposed a similar idea.

There was some tittering ahead of Clinton's speech that she would be
attacking Uber, the ride-sharing service that's become a darling of the
Republican Party. But whether she was alluding to disruptive businesses
like Uber or entrenched Wall Street firms, her actual remarks hardly
amounted to a scorched-earth attack.

"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing
websites, selling products they designed themselves at home, or even
driving their own car," Clinton said. "This on-demand or so-called 'gig
economy' is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but
it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a
good job will look like in the future."

Clinton also teased a plan to reform the capital-gains tax—a topic on which
she has come under some scrutiny—that she says she'll get into when she
visits New Hampshire later this week. And while the average voter's eyelids
may start to droop as quick as you can say "capital-gains tax," it's become
somewhat of a progressive litmus test for Democratic candidates. Democracy
for America, one of the progressive groups that were agitating for an
Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign, had a positive take on Clinton's
economic speech.

"Coupled with Senator Bernie Sanders' early 2016 surge, today's speech
illustrates the dominant force the Elizabeth Warren Wing is in the
Democratic Party and the critical role it has already played in ensuring
that income inequality, the moral issue of our time, sits at the very
center of the 2016 presidential debate," Jim Dean, Democracy for America's
chair, said in a statement.

There are still some gaps in Clinton's economic agenda. Both Sanders and
Martin O'Malley have said they would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour,
while Clinton has remained mum on the exact wage she would seek. Some have
argued that doubling the minimum wage would be too risky a move, and one
that may reduce employment.

Still, for Democrats, Clinton's policies are light-years ahead of those of
her Republican counterparts. And that's something she latched onto in her
speech on Monday while avoiding criticism of her primary opponents. Clinton
called out Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker by name to criticize
their views on labor, taxes, and unions, respectively.

On Bush's comment that "people need to work longer hours": "You may have
heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to work longer
hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers. Let him tell
that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the teacher who is in
that classroom, or the trucker who drives all night. Let him tell that to
the fast-food worker marching in the streets for better pay. They don't
need a lecture. They need a raise."

On Rubio's proposed tax plan: "We hear Republican candidates talk a lot
about tax reform, but take a good look at their plans. Senator Rubio's
would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost
$240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical
family. Well, that's a sure budget-busting giveaway to the super-wealthy,
and that's the kind of bad economics you're likely to hear from any of the
candidates on the other side."

On Walker stripping public-employee unions in his state of collective
bargaining: "Alongside tax reform, it's time to stand up to efforts across
our country to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven
again and again to drive up wages. Republican governors like Scott Walker
have made their names stomping on workers' rights, and practically all the
Republican candidates hope to do the same as president. I will fight back
against these mean-spirited, misguided attacks."

*Hillary Clinton unveils economic plan with jabs at Wall St and her
opponents
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11737117/Hillary-Clinton-unveils-economic-plan-with-jabs-at-Wall-St-and-her-opponents.html>
// Telegraph // Peter Foster – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton set down the economic battle-lines for the 2016 US general
election Monday, promising to rebuild the American dream while issuing a
stinging attack on the “criminal” excesses of some sections of the Wall
Street banking culture.

In a two-pronged strategy, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination
attacked her Republican opponents for their “trickle-down” economic
theories while seeking to defend against criticism from the Left wing of
her own party about her links with Wall Street and big business interests.

Promising to raise incomes for America’s middle classes, Mrs Clinton
singled out Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor who is likely to be one
of her most formidable opponents in the 2016 race, for his recent remarks
saying Americans needed to raise their productivity.

“You may have heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to
work longer hours. He must not have met very many American workers …. They
don’t need a lecture, they need a raise,” she said in a speech in New York.

Mrs Clinton, who can earn $250,000 (£160,000) from a single speaking
engagement – nearly five times the current annual median US household
income – has worked hard in recent months to burnish her credentials with
ordinary Americans, embarking on a “listening tour” in key battleground
states.

As president, Mrs Clinton promised new measures to boost incomes, such as
schemes to increase corporate profit-sharing schemes, as well as new plans
to help women, working families and low-skilled workers make better livings.

“The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hard-working
families — not just for successful CEOs and money managers,” she said,
before launching a scathing attack on “hedge funds” and “high-frequency
traders”, her voice at times larded with disdain.

The populist rhetoric was aimed as much at her Democrat opponents, such as
Bernie Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator who has rapidly closed to
within 8 points of Mrs Clinton in the key primary state of New Hampshire,
as it was at Republicans.

Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who is also running clearly
to the Left of Mrs Clinton, was quick to push back after the speech, saying
in a statement that “vague promises” would not rebuild the American dream.

His own policies, widely seen as far-fetched but appealing to the Left,
include offering debt-free college education within five years, passing a
$15 minimum wage and converting America to 100 per cent renewable energy by
2050.

Republicans have retreated to populist rhetoric of their own, arguing that
the same policies derided by Mrs Clinton – tax breaks, welfare cuts and
union-busting – is the real road back to a high-growth economy and
restoring middle class prosperity.

Among the leading proponents of that strategy is Scott Walker, the
47-year-old governor of the Midwestern state of Wisconsin who will launch
his campaign today by touting his record crushing teachers unions and
cutting taxes in his own state.

“He balanced budgets, cut taxes and beat the special interests, improved
education, created jobs and showed how to fight and win,” said a
promotional video announcing his White House bid. He will become the
fifteenth Republican to enter the race.

Mr Bush, who has promised to double America’s current economic growth rate
to four per cent per year, led Republican retorts to Mrs Clinton’s brand of
economics – dubbed “fair-left not far-left” by her own strategists –
calling her “defeatist” for ducking annual growth targets.

Marco Rubio, the young Cuban-American senator from Florida who is widely
seen as a leading challenger to Mr Bush, also attacked Mrs Clinton for what
he said was a backward-looking speech full of tired ideas.

“She seems to believe pumping more of today’s money into yesterday’s
programs will bring prosperity tomorrow. It will not,” he said, “Increasing
taxes and regulations will not promote fairness or opportunity; it will
snuff out innovation and crush small business.”

Rick Perry, the former Texas governor whose state led the US in
job-creation on the back of the shale-oil boom, accused Mrs Clinton of
“re-gifting” the economic policies of the Obama administration that had
left wages flat and job creation stagnant.

“There is a proven blueprint for job creation in this country, and it is
based on lowering taxes and reining in out of control, bureaucratic red
tape,” he said.

*Hillary Clinton wants to raise wages for women and average Americans
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-wants-to-raise-wages-for-women-and-average-americans-10385770.html>
// Independent // Justin Carissimo – July 13, 2015 *

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton announced her economic plan in New
York on Monday.

“We need new ideas …  One that I believe in and will fight for is profit
sharing,” she said.

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce.”

The former secretary of state spoke at the New School, a progressive
university in Greenwich Village on Monday morning. Ms Clinton proposed tax
breaks for companies that create programmes to share profits with employees
to raise action for middle-class wages.

The Washington Post received an early release of the report, and revealed
that Ms Clinton wants to boost women’s pay and ensure more women are in the
workforce.

“Clinton will call for paid leave policies to help women work while raising
families. That might help raising the number of women in the labor force,
which has flatlined after years of growth. How much such a policy will to
close pay disparities between men and women isn't as clear,” the newspaper
said.

Ms Clinton will urge growth by increasing taxes on the wealthiest
Americans, raising the federal minimum wage, new child care benefits,
federal subsidies for college tuition as well as laws that would help
expand unions.

She said her framework would help sustain “an economy that grows faster,
fairer and more sustainably so that everyday Americans can get ahead and
stay ahead.”

The Centre for American Progress, a liberal think tank with strong ties to
the campaign, released a report.

The presidential hopeful will provide further details on the plan at an
event on Thursday in New Hampshire.

*Hillary Clinton: America is leaving ‘talent on the sidelines’ by limiting
women at work
<http://mashable.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-economic-policy/> //
Mashable // Megan Specia – July 13, 2015 *

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton outlined her planned
economic policy focusing on the middle class — with a special emphasis on
gender equality in the workforce, small business and the protection of
unions — during a speech in New York City on Monday.

She didn't hesitate to open her address by slamming Republican politicians
for failed "trickle down" economic policies.

"Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic president has had to come in
and clean up the mess left behind," Clinton said before proceeding on her
wide-ranging policy plans.

"We must raise incomes for hardworking Americans so they can afford a
middle class life," said Clinton, a theme she carried throughout her
announcement at the New School in Manhattan. "And that will be my mission
from the first day I am president to the last."

Much of her speech focused on the challenges faced by women in the
workforce. She said that fair pay, fair scheduling, paid family leave,
earned sick days and childcare are essential, adding that by limiting women
in the workforce, American limits its own potential.

"We can’t afford to leave talent on the sidelines, but that's exactly what
we are doing," Clinton said.

"Women who want to work should be able to do so without worrying everyday
about how they are going to care for their children or what they are going
to do if a family member gets sick," said Clinton. "I am well aware that
for far too long, these challenges have been dismissed by some as women's
issues, well those days are over."

Clinton also made the case for defending the collective bargaining power of
unions. Over the weekend, Clinton became the first major candidate to earn
the endorsement of a national labor union when the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) said they would be supporting her in 2016. The AFT includes
1.6 million members and retirees nationwide.

She specifically called out newly declared GOP candidate Gov. Scott Walker,
who announced his campaign on Monday. Walker is known nationally for
efforts to limit the power of unions in his home state of Wisconsin.

"Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names by stomping
on workers rights," said Clinton. "I will fight back against these mean
spirited misguided attacks."

Clinton also emphasized that if elected president, her policy would have a
long-term focus.

"I believe part of public service is planting trees under whose shade
you'll never sit," said Clinton.

*The Uber economy worries Hillary Clinton a little
<http://mashable.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-sharing-economy/> //
Mashable // Seth Figerman – July 13, 2015 *

Uber is suddenly becoming a talking point in the 2016 presidential race.

During her first major economic policy address since entering the 2016
presidential race, Hillary Clinton praised the innovation of startups that
let "many Americans" make extra money by renting out spare rooms and
offering rides in their cars, but she nonetheless tossed out a veiled
threat at the way these and other businesses operate.

"I'll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as
contractors or even steal their wages," Clinton said in her economic speech
at the New School in Manhattan on Monday.

Her remarks come as billion-dollar startups like Uber and Lyft are under
mounting scrutiny from legislators, court judges and the media for
classifying drivers as independent contractors rather than part-time or
full-time employees entitled to healthcare benefits, sick time and paid
time off.

Clinton did not cite any businesses by name in her comments, but earlier in
her speech she expressed concern about the "gig economy" which comes
without healthcare or benefits.

"This on demand or so called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities
and unleashing innovation, but it is also raising hard questions about
workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future,"
Clinton said in her speech at the New School in Manhattan on Monday.

Businesses like Uber argue that many of their employees actually prefer to
be contractors, rather than employees, for the freedom it provides. Some
contractors work for multiple startups, or choose to work only a few hours
or days per week. Left unspoken, however, is the fact that classifying most
or all contractors as employees would cut into these companies' profit
margins, perhaps forcing them to raise prices or otherwise change their
approach.

Uber, in particular, is currently trying to fend off a pending class action
lawsuit arguing that its drivers in California officially be recognized as
employees. The ride-hailing company has recently lost a smaller,
non-precedent setting case, with a court ruling that one individual driver
was entitled to retroactive compensation entitled to proper employees.

Clinton stopped short of explaining exactly how she intended to crack down
on this business practice, or offer an alternative arrangement for startups
like Uber in particular.

The former Secretary of State isn't the only one with Uber on the mind: Jeb
Bush, a Republican candidate for president, is reportedly planning to "hail
an Uber" later this week and talk publicly about "the importance of
innovation."

The growing number of presidential candidates talking about the on-demand
economy is a testament to the fast growth and impact of this sector, but it
could lead to even greater scrutiny of these businesses at a time when they
are already mounting defenses against political and regulatory attacks
around the world.

Perhaps recognizing the sensitive political optics and business risks,
several similar startups have proactively shifted their approach:
Instacart, a grocery delivery service, has begun converting contractors to
part-time employees in select markets. Shyp, a startup for delivering
packages, has also shifted to classifying its contractors as W2 employees.

The overall theme of Clinton's speech was calling for the need to "build a
growth and fairness economy," which would better support the middle class
and push for broader prosperity as we move further past the global
recession of 2008.

In addition to concerns about the sharing economy, Clinton name-checked
every major economic and financial problem of the moment. teased plans to
help ease the burden of student loan debt, called for immigration reform,
criticized high-frequency trading and slammed the "quarterly capitalism"
trend of businesses looking to appease investors through stock buybacks and
ever-larger dividends, rather than investing long-term in workers through
greater pay and additional resources. She also advocated for women at work
and said she wants to be the "small-business president."

*7 Feminist Aspects Of Hillary Clinton’s Economic Plan That Would Change
Everything For Women In America
<http://www.bustle.com/articles/96809-7-feminist-aspects-of-hillary-clintons-economic-plan-that-would-change-everything-for-women-in-america>
// Bustle // Kendyl Kearly – July 13, 2015 *

Although she has been criticized for months for not being open enough, both
in terms of communicating with the press and on her key policy points,
Hillary Clinton laid out an expansive, feminist economic plan on Monday in
a speech at the traditionally liberal New School in New York City. There,
Clinton offered specific policy plans on a number of economic issues, like
the need for corporations to profit-share with employees, education
investments, tax code reform, and health care costs. However, the most
optimistic point in her address was Clinton’s focus on handling economic
issues that specifically affect women — both for the sake of women’s
rights, Clinton noted, and for the growth of America’s economy.

Deeply important issues like the gender pay gap and affordable childcare
for working mothers are often lumped with abortion and contraception access
into the broad, vague “women’s issues” category by candidates. By bringing
attention to the need for feminist economic reform, Clinton made clear she
sees the lack of pro-women economic initiatives as a serious fiscal issue,
noting, “These challenges have been dismissed by some as women’s issues.
Well, those days are over.”

Although analysts might have expected such a high-profile feminist
candidate to make fixing these problems a part of her platform, the
pro-women points underlying her entire economic plan were much
unprecedented. Some examples…

Equal Pay

In the economic dialogue of presidential candidates, fair pay rarely gets
tat much attention. The focus typically goes to the national debt,
unemployment, and welfare, to name a few. As important as those issues are,
they are no more noteworthy than the fact that on average, women are paid
less than men for doing the same work. The research varies, but the Pew
Research Center has the gap at 84 cents on the dollar. Even if it’s 99
cents on the dollar, this is a genuine economic problem, and a presidential
candidate is finally making it a priority.

Paid Family Leave

Clinton also addressed the need for paid family leave. A lack of paid
family leave is often one of the reasons women fall behind in the corporate
world. They sometimes have to leave a job for maternity leave and do not
find their jobs waiting for them when they return. In May, Clinton said,
according to The Hill, “At a time that should be so exciting and joyful, I
see so many women just distraught.”

Fair Scheduling

Irregular hours and just-in-time scheduling hit women hard. They often have
to deal with finding child care, and 6 million women have said a lack of
fair scheduling is why they don’t have full-time employment, according to
Al Jazeera America. Women often work irregular hours and excessive overtime
or face losing their jobs. Clinton has made herself one of the few
politicians — nor just among the presidential candidates but among all
lawmakers — to address this.

Affordable Child Care

Clinton also cites a lack of affordable child care as a reason women are
held back. Her plan to give working and middle class families access to
pre-k education fits in with this issue. If more women could afford child
care, they could have the option of building careers or investing in higher
education.

Earned Sick Days

A lack of earned sick days for employees can end up putting women behind
their male coworkers. When a child is sick, a working mother often has to
decide whether to take time off and possibly lose her job or go to work and
risk the wellbeing of their family. One study revealed that working women
are twice as likely to experience a job loss because of family illness,
according to NJ Time To Care. Clinton wants to make sure everyone has
access to the sick days they deserve.

Increased Minimum Wage

Although Clinton’s support of a higher minimum wage is not a
gender-specific issue, it could help a lot of women. The single mother is
particularly susceptible to falling into poverty. One third of all families
headed by single mothers were below the poverty line in 2013, about 15.6
million households, according to The Huffington Post.

Other Employee Benefits

Clinton also wants to give employees more benefits and training. With women
making up 47.21 percent of the workforce, according to The Huffington Post,
worker benefits would definitely help them get ahead. Giving women the
opportunity to get more training could be a factor in disassembling the
glass ceiling — the idea that women don’t get promoted as often or as
quickly as men.

No major presidential candidate has ever really given these concerns so
much intentness. No candidate has every promised to take them on with such
fervor. Maybe it just took a female frontrunner. Maybe it just took Hillary.

*It’s the [Sharing] Economy, Stupid
<https://medium.com/@GenFwdPAC/it-s-the-sharing-economy-stupid-2337741f423f>
// Medium // Damian O’Doherty – July 13, 2015 *

Secretary Clinton’s rebuke of Uber, Airbnb, and the sharing economy in her
recent economic address is the 2016 campaign’s first George H.W. Bush 1992
grocery scanner moment — where a visibly disconnected politician
uncomfortably assesses a not-so-modern technology with bemusement. What’s
more troubling to progressives is that while Bush, Sr. seemed disconnected
with the future, Secretary Clinton seems to declare war on it. Can anyone
imagine President Bill Clinton railing against Amazon.com or eBay in the
1990s? How can a leader fight the future?

It’s a troubling moment for the Democratic Party when our potential
standard bearer dismisses the future of work, American innovation, and the
lifestyle of the WE generation — all in one speech. Democrats have always
been the party of the future, but Secretary Clinton’s economic speech on
Monday was much more interested in where we’ve been than where we’re going.

Whether it’s Gen Xers, millennials, or my mom in Memphis, “metroDemocrats”
will, and rightfully should, challenge any candidate who wants to take our
party — and our nation — backwards.

Luckily, we have leaders who get it. Leaders who understand that moving
forward doesn’t have to mean a wholesale rejection of the past; who
understand that a traditional, W2-based economy can survive, and even
thrive, in an era of innovation and risk-taking.

Leaders like Governor Martin O’Malley, who are willing to stand up and say
that “an economy is not money — an economy is people,” and who made sure
that innovation was allowed to thrive in Maryland while ensuring that
workers were protected and supported. A leader who could pair an increase
in the minimum wage with fair regulations to ensure that companies grow
while workers enjoyed the highest per capita income in the country. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, rarely a voice for progressives, rated Maryland
the number one state for innovation and entrepreneurship three years in row.

We know the sharing economy is a foundation for a new kind of progress
— progress
that gives workers the freedom to choose their own hours, locations, and
clients. Progress that allows new Americans, young people, and
entrepreneurs decide the terms of their employment.

This is the kind of American problem solving that has taken hold across the
globe, showing our national brand to the world as more than just militarism
and consumerism. The last three Uber trips from my house were women driving
women to work and school. More globally, Uber’s United Nations Women
partnership plans to employ 1,000,000 women from around the globe in the
next 5 years.

An economy isn’t money, it’s people.

Cities like San Francisco, Austin, Boston, Des Moines, Manchester, and
Baltimore show where the global future wants to be. That’s what the data
tells us: that America is home to growing and attractive cities because of
their BIG D Democratic values of density, innovation, connectivity, and
interdependence. Millennials don’t retreat to three-car garages. They want
to get together and solve problems: local, social, and mobile. Martin
O’Malley is a guru of these values — delivering open, data driven platforms
that allow everyone to have a fair fight about the future. And to get to
where they want to go, as efficiently as possible.

Washington is different. Since 1994, the year the booming Amazon.com was
founded, Washington staffers and professionals have been perversely
promoted and paid more for not getting things done. These incentives for
under achievement are the hallmark of the last three decades of American
politics. Martin O’Malley is different. As the innovator of American
politics, he fights to create an entrepreneurial common platform that
allows us all to get going somewhere together, share data, find shared
solutions, and move forward. Together.

*Hillary Clinton Touts Banking Reform And Bashes HSBC, Despite Clinton
Charitable Foundation Taking Money From The Bank In 2014
<http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-touts-banking-reform-bashes-hsbc-despite-clinton-charitable-2006413>
// IB Times // Clark Mindock – July 13, 2015 *

Speaking in an auditorium in New York City on Monday, Hillary Clinton
delivered an expansive policy address that looked to position herself as a
champion of middle class voters and an advocate of tough banking policies.
While speaking about the misconduct of financial institutions, however,
Clinton mentioned HSBC, which her family’s charitable foundation, the
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), accepted money from in 2014 in spite of a
recent money laundering settlement.

“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial
industry are shocking” Clinton said. “HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder
money, five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to
manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no
justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.”

Just two years before the 2014 HSBC donation to CGI, the bank reached a
nearly $2 billion settlement agreement with the U.S. government over money
laundering charges. The foundation is also known to have received donations
from wealthy donors with accounts in HSBC’s controversial Swiss banks,
where clients are said to stash money to avoid paying taxes.

Donations to the Clinton charitable foundations have raised questions on
the influence that big money players from banks to foreign governments
might have on the former secretary of state. At the same time, Clinton has
delivered speeches on the campaign trail saying she will take banks to task
as president. The charitable donations are not said to be illegal.

A CNN review of Clinton Global Initiative donations earlier this year
showed that, in 2014, HSBC gave between $500,000 and $1 million for the CGI
yearly meeting, which qualifies the bank in the highest support tier
possible for the event. The Department of Justice and U.S. Treasury
announced in 2012 that HSBC had to pay a $1.92 billion settlement over
allegations that the bank allowed drug cartels to launder money and that
HSBC violated U.S. sanctions by conducting transactions for customers in
Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma. It was unclear whether or not the bank had
donated to the foundation in previous years.

A separate Guardian investigation from February connected $81 million in
donations from wealthy donors with accounts in the HSBC bank in Geneva at
the center of the controversy. The identities were discovered through memo
leaks from a computer expert at the bank, and included a Canadian mining
magnate, Frank Giustra, who donated $1 million from the tax-free haven.
Hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, also
donated money.

While mentioning the bank, Clinton was discussing her support for the
Dodd-Frank reform act, which has become the target of Republicans. She said
that she will support the act’s continued existence against Republican
attacks and called for it to go further.

“I will fight back against these attacks and protect the reforms we’ve
made. We can do that and still ease burdens on community banks to encourage
responsible loans to local people and businesses they know and trust,” she
said. “We also have to go beyond Dodd-Frank.”

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this
story.

*Hillary Clinton Uses First Economic Speech to Attack Top GOP Opponents
<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-uses-first-economic-speech-to-attack-top-gop-opponents/>
// The Blaze // Fred Lucas – July 13, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said Monday that her presidency would be devoted to
ensuring a “growth and fairness economy.”

“We must raise incomes for hardworking Americans,” Clinton said in her
first policy speech since launching her bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination. “That will be my mission from my first day as president to the
last.”

The former secretary of state introduced points for her economic agenda
that she promised to speak more about during the week. She defended
President Barack Obama’s economic record, and criticized large companies
for thinking about short-term gains, which she said come at the expense of
longterm growth.

Clinton talked about several ideas she has mentioned before, such as
early-childhood education, an increased minimum wage and defending
Obamacare. The newest idea she pledged explain more about this week was
boosting incentives for companies to provide profit-sharing to employees.

“I will propose ways to encourage companies to share profits with their
employees,” Clinton said. “That will be good for workers and good for
business. Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a
company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into
employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win.”

Clinton faces an awkward situation as a Democratic presidential candidate
arguing for higher wages, amid slow wage growth during the Obama
administration.

As the leading Democrat in most polls, Clinton gave a glimpse as to who she
has narrowed her expected Republicans opponents down to, targeting former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and race newcomer,
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

“You may have heard Governor Bush say last week that Americans just need to
work longer hours. He must not have met very many American workers,”
Clinton said to applause.

Bush spoke last week about underemployment and not enough few full-time
jobs. Clinton talked about nurses, truck drivers and fast-food workers
logging on long hours, and said, “They don’t need a lecture—they need a
raise.”

Walker, who formally announced Monday morning, was also in her crosshairs.

“Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their name by stomping
out worker’s rights,” Clinton said. She added, “If we want to get serious
about raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union
workers.”

She further said that Rubio’s tax plan is a “budget-busting giveaway” to
the wealthy.

After taking shots at her opponents though, Clinton sounded conciliatory.

“We have to break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the
long term needs of our country,” Clinton said.