Arizona GOP National Committeeman
BRUCE ASH sent this to us:
Hillary Claims She's Setting "An Example" Explaining How She'd Pay For Her Plans, But She's Left A Number Of Multi-Billion Dollar Programs Unaccounted For
__________________________________________________
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Claims She Has "Tried To Set An Example" By Explaining How She Would Pay For Her Proposals:
Hillary: "I Have Tried To Set An Example On The Campaign By Explaining How I Am Going To Pay For My Top Priorities." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
But Hillary Has Failed To Explain How She Would Pay For Her $20 Billion-A-Year Baby Bond Proposal:
Hillary's Baby Bond Proposal Would Give $5,000 To Each Of The 4 Million Babies Born In The U.S. Each Year. "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 'baby bond' from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. ... Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States." (Devlin Barrett, "Clinton: $5,000 For Every U.S. Baby," The Associated Press, 9/28/07)
The Chicago Tribune: "It Would Be Expensive -- About $20 Billion A Year -- And Clinton Offered No Way To Pay For It." (Editorial, "Clinton's Baby Boondoggle," The Chicago Tribune, 10/2/07)
And Hillary Has Been Evasive On How She Would Ensure The Solvency Of Social Security:
"Hillary Clinton's Plan To Rescue Social Security From Financial Disaster Is As Clear As Mud." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
Hillary Says "We Must Make Bold Decisions Now" To Save Social Security. "It's in all our interests to preserve and strengthen Social Security into the next century. And if we don't want to burden our children and grandchildren -- if we want to make sure Social Security remains solvent well into the 21st century -- we must make bold decisions now." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore: "She Just Won't Tell Us What Those Bold Decisions Are." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
Hillary Makes It Sound As If "Nothing Ails Social Security That A Little Bit of Fiscal Responsibility Wouldn't Cure." "But listening to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), you'd think nothing ails Social Security that a little bit of fiscal responsibility wouldn't cure. If something more is needed, Ms. Clinton isn't saying what. Private accounts are off the table and, Ms. Clinton adds, cutting benefits or raising the retirement age is 'not an answer.'" (Editorial, "Sen. Clinton's Empty Table," The Washington Post, 10/1/07)
The Washington Post: "Fiscal Responsibility First Is Fine; Fiscal Responsibility Only Is An Irresponsible Dodge, As Ms. Clinton Well Knows." (Editorial, "Sen. Clinton's Empty Table," The Washington Post, 10/1/07)
The Washington Times: "How Are We To Pay For This? Via Mrs. Clinton's Promise, Most Of The Answers Are Off The Table." (Editorial, "Hillary's $7 Trillion Promise," The Washington Times, 9/6/07)
Hillary Has Even Failed To Explain How She Would Pay For Her Universal Pre-K Plan:
Hillary On Universal Pre-Kindergarten: "I want to start with universal pre-kindergarten for every four year old. ... I would sure rather be paying for pre-kindergarten than more prisons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Des Moines, IA, 7/2/07)
Hillary's Universal Pre-K Would Cost $5 Billion The First Year, And The Next Five Years It Would Increase To $10 Billion. Hillary Clinton's "Fact Sheet" On Universal Pre-K: "The federal government will allocate $5 billion in the first year to states to establish and administer universal Pre-K. Over the next five years, the federal commitment will increase to $10 billion as states increase their commitment to Pre-K." (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 9/28/07)
Des Moines Register's David Yepsen: "Candidates should give us some specifics ... For example, it's pretty clear spending on early-childhood health and pre-kindergarten education programs helps kids ... But where's the up-front money going to come from to pay for it?" (David Yepsen, "Candidates Need To Shell Out Specifics On Money," Des Moines Register, 9/25/07)
And Hillary's Plan To Pay For Her $110 Billion Health Care Plan Is Flawed:
Hillary On How She Would Pay For Her Plan: "I will pay for just over half the cost of my American Health Choices Plan with savings from reducing Medicare overpayments to HMOs and other unnecessary federal spending, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and modernizing the health-care system. Just under half would be financed by letting the Bush income-tax cuts for the wealthy expire." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
But A House Democratic Aide Said There Is Flawed Logic In Basing Programs On Rolling Back Tax Cuts, Because "There's Just No Way To Know What Revenues Will Be." "A House Democratic aide said proposing new programs that rely on the Bush tax cuts seems like flawed logic because 'there's just no way to know what revenues will be.'" (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
The Wall Street Journal: The Hillary Camp Projects $35 Billion In Savings From Modernizing Health Care Delivery, Which Is "Speculative, If Not Fanciful." "The rest of the estimated $110 billion per year in new government spending would be achieved by 'modernizing' health-care delivery and 'promoting wellness,' though this $35 billion in savings is speculative, if not fanciful. Further tax hikes would be required: That $110 billion is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and Team Hillary is keeping the specifics in its pocket." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press: "Have You Ever Seen Any Federal Program That Did Not Cost Much More In Operation Than Estimated At The Beginning?" (Editorial, "Hillary Tax-And-Med Care," Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press, 9/19/07)
NOTE: Regina Herzlinger Of Harvard Business School: The Cost Of HillaryCare 2.0 Will Be "Closer To $150 Billion - 200 Billion Per Year." "Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School ... cautions that the cost of her approach may be closer to $150 billion-200 billion per year. If so, would the plan then require a vast expansion of Medicare or huge new taxes--Hillarycare by the back door, as some critics say?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
RE-LIVING HISTORY: Hillary's Tax Hikes For Her 1993 Universal Health Care Did Not Cover Costs:
"Little Was Said About The Most Controversial, And Difficult, Question: How To Pay For These Reforms?" (Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder, The System, 1996, p. 80)
"Any Way They Looked At It, The Reforms Were Going To Cost About $50 Billion To $100 Billion In The Short Run, Before The Savings Could Be Realized. Most Of The Tax Options Couldn't Come Close To Raising This Kind Of Money." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 189)
"In The Meeting When The Question Of Cost Arose, Hillary Casually Tossed Out The $100 Billion Figure. Senator Jay Rockefeller, A Close Administration Ally On Health Care Reform, Dropped His Jaw. If They Were Planning To Spend $100 Billion, A Large New Unpopular Tax Would Be Unavoidable." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 190)
PDF Format
A Product Of The RNC Research Department
__________________________________________________
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Claims She Has "Tried To Set An Example" By Explaining How She Would Pay For Her Proposals:
Hillary: "I Have Tried To Set An Example On The Campaign By Explaining How I Am Going To Pay For My Top Priorities." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
But Hillary Has Failed To Explain How She Would Pay For Her $20 Billion-A-Year Baby Bond Proposal:
Hillary's Baby Bond Proposal Would Give $5,000 To Each Of The 4 Million Babies Born In The U.S. Each Year. "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 'baby bond' from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. ... Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States." (Devlin Barrett, "Clinton: $5,000 For Every U.S. Baby," The Associated Press, 9/28/07)
The Chicago Tribune: "It Would Be Expensive -- About $20 Billion A Year -- And Clinton Offered No Way To Pay For It." (Editorial, "Clinton's Baby Boondoggle," The Chicago Tribune, 10/2/07)
And Hillary Has Been Evasive On How She Would Ensure The Solvency Of Social Security:
"Hillary Clinton's Plan To Rescue Social Security From Financial Disaster Is As Clear As Mud." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
Hillary Says "We Must Make Bold Decisions Now" To Save Social Security. "It's in all our interests to preserve and strengthen Social Security into the next century. And if we don't want to burden our children and grandchildren -- if we want to make sure Social Security remains solvent well into the 21st century -- we must make bold decisions now." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore: "She Just Won't Tell Us What Those Bold Decisions Are." (Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, "Hillary's Entitlement Bailout Tax?," Opinion Journal's "Political Diary," 9/7/07)
Hillary Makes It Sound As If "Nothing Ails Social Security That A Little Bit of Fiscal Responsibility Wouldn't Cure." "But listening to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), you'd think nothing ails Social Security that a little bit of fiscal responsibility wouldn't cure. If something more is needed, Ms. Clinton isn't saying what. Private accounts are off the table and, Ms. Clinton adds, cutting benefits or raising the retirement age is 'not an answer.'" (Editorial, "Sen. Clinton's Empty Table," The Washington Post, 10/1/07)
The Washington Post: "Fiscal Responsibility First Is Fine; Fiscal Responsibility Only Is An Irresponsible Dodge, As Ms. Clinton Well Knows." (Editorial, "Sen. Clinton's Empty Table," The Washington Post, 10/1/07)
The Washington Times: "How Are We To Pay For This? Via Mrs. Clinton's Promise, Most Of The Answers Are Off The Table." (Editorial, "Hillary's $7 Trillion Promise," The Washington Times, 9/6/07)
Hillary Has Even Failed To Explain How She Would Pay For Her Universal Pre-K Plan:
Hillary On Universal Pre-Kindergarten: "I want to start with universal pre-kindergarten for every four year old. ... I would sure rather be paying for pre-kindergarten than more prisons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Des Moines, IA, 7/2/07)
Hillary's Universal Pre-K Would Cost $5 Billion The First Year, And The Next Five Years It Would Increase To $10 Billion. Hillary Clinton's "Fact Sheet" On Universal Pre-K: "The federal government will allocate $5 billion in the first year to states to establish and administer universal Pre-K. Over the next five years, the federal commitment will increase to $10 billion as states increase their commitment to Pre-K." (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 9/28/07)
Des Moines Register's David Yepsen: "Candidates should give us some specifics ... For example, it's pretty clear spending on early-childhood health and pre-kindergarten education programs helps kids ... But where's the up-front money going to come from to pay for it?" (David Yepsen, "Candidates Need To Shell Out Specifics On Money," Des Moines Register, 9/25/07)
And Hillary's Plan To Pay For Her $110 Billion Health Care Plan Is Flawed:
Hillary On How She Would Pay For Her Plan: "I will pay for just over half the cost of my American Health Choices Plan with savings from reducing Medicare overpayments to HMOs and other unnecessary federal spending, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and modernizing the health-care system. Just under half would be financed by letting the Bush income-tax cuts for the wealthy expire." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
But A House Democratic Aide Said There Is Flawed Logic In Basing Programs On Rolling Back Tax Cuts, Because "There's Just No Way To Know What Revenues Will Be." "A House Democratic aide said proposing new programs that rely on the Bush tax cuts seems like flawed logic because 'there's just no way to know what revenues will be.'" (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
The Wall Street Journal: The Hillary Camp Projects $35 Billion In Savings From Modernizing Health Care Delivery, Which Is "Speculative, If Not Fanciful." "The rest of the estimated $110 billion per year in new government spending would be achieved by 'modernizing' health-care delivery and 'promoting wellness,' though this $35 billion in savings is speculative, if not fanciful. Further tax hikes would be required: That $110 billion is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and Team Hillary is keeping the specifics in its pocket." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press: "Have You Ever Seen Any Federal Program That Did Not Cost Much More In Operation Than Estimated At The Beginning?" (Editorial, "Hillary Tax-And-Med Care," Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press, 9/19/07)
NOTE: Regina Herzlinger Of Harvard Business School: The Cost Of HillaryCare 2.0 Will Be "Closer To $150 Billion - 200 Billion Per Year." "Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School ... cautions that the cost of her approach may be closer to $150 billion-200 billion per year. If so, would the plan then require a vast expansion of Medicare or huge new taxes--Hillarycare by the back door, as some critics say?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
RE-LIVING HISTORY: Hillary's Tax Hikes For Her 1993 Universal Health Care Did Not Cover Costs:
"Little Was Said About The Most Controversial, And Difficult, Question: How To Pay For These Reforms?" (Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder, The System, 1996, p. 80)
"Any Way They Looked At It, The Reforms Were Going To Cost About $50 Billion To $100 Billion In The Short Run, Before The Savings Could Be Realized. Most Of The Tax Options Couldn't Come Close To Raising This Kind Of Money." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 189)
"In The Meeting When The Question Of Cost Arose, Hillary Casually Tossed Out The $100 Billion Figure. Senator Jay Rockefeller, A Close Administration Ally On Health Care Reform, Dropped His Jaw. If They Were Planning To Spend $100 Billion, A Large New Unpopular Tax Would Be Unavoidable." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 190)
PDF Format
A Product Of The RNC Research Department
No comments:
Post a Comment