For one New York Times columnist, democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hasn’t been revolutionary enough in her economic policies.
Times columnist Eduardo Porter complained that Clinton’s economic plan, which included “only $1.1 trillion” in new tax hikes and $275 million in infrastructure spending, was just a “careful collection of tweaks and prods.”
Instead, Porter argued, Clinton should shoot for revolutionary change like her challenger: democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
“Bernie Sanders talks about a revolution. Mrs. Clinton might want to try to deliver one,” Porter wrote on June 14. His entire column focused on Clinton’s “ Risk of Excess Caution in Economic Policy.”
He argued that while Clinton’s tax plan was “judicious” compared to Sander’s $15.3 trillion in tax increases, “excessive judiciousness can hamstring progress.”
Before praising Obama for the most “progressive presidency since the 1960s,” Porter suggested that Clinton’s economic plan was not enough to tackle America’s economic problems.
“But the mantra that worked in the 1990s is nonetheless ill-matched to the momentous challenges posed by a nation split by vast inequities of income and opportunity,” Porter wrote.
His column was just one of many examples of the Times’ harping on inequality. Even when recently reporting on a drop in average CEO pay, the paper complained that corporations created a “large-scale transfer of wealth” to rich, white men.
Porter has called for higher taxes and criticized inequality for many years. In 2013, Porter argued that the government should give all taxpayers a tax hike to deal with the country’s debt. When Occupy Wall Street complained about inequality in 2011, Porter hailed the group in a column titled, “Wall Street Protesters Hit the Bull’s-Eye.”