Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have different views on money in politics and corporations'

roles in our government and public policy. Which is best for America?

Hillary presented her economic policy proposals in a speech at the New School for Social Research (It's about an hour long. BE PREPARED.)

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327052-1/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-address

She outlines the problems that confront us especially with regard to income and wealth disparity very well.

She then glibly and vaguely identifies the solution: "Growth."

She adopts Bernie's suggestion that we should raise the minimum wage to $15.00. That is a solid proposal especially if that minimum wage will be tied to inflation.

She also agrees with Bernie on more support for unions. That would help strengthen the bargaining power of working people.

But then, Hillary's proposals falter. She argues that employers should bear the burden of paying new mothers and fathers for family leave. She might even offer tax breaks to promote that socially useful policy as well as some other policies. But what good are tax breaks for small businesses that are struggling? And how are businesses to bear the burden of paying for family leave? Small business cannot even bear the burden of paying employees on jury duty. Imposing on small business owners the duty to pay their employees' sick leave even with tax incentives will not promote more economic equality.

Since 1970, the Republicans, Bill Clinton and Obama have tested this tactic pf tax incentives and working with business to solve economic problems, and failed miserably. The rich have gotten much richer, taking most of the gains from our growth and our new technologies, and the middle class and poor have become poorer.

In spite of that failure, Hillary proposes working with the oligarchs, with Wall Street, the bankers and business leaders to solve our economic problems and create growth. This is the Republican and Democratic Leadership Council or Third Way mantra, and that is why many progressive Democrats refer to Hillary as Republican Lite.

While corporations and business may play a limited role in solving the economic problems in our society, putting them in charge or even allowing them to have a leading or decisive role in creating our government's economic policy will not distribute our wealth more fairly or broadly.

The reason is simple: The oligarchs, the leaders on Wall Street and the CEOs of America's multinational corporations are often by law required to put the interests of their own shareholders and corporations before those of the country or anyone in the country. This is the LAW on corporations.

Bound by that law and by their shareholders' demands, corporations should not and cannot take the lead in proposing solutions to the problems of the poor and middle class. They can follow the lead of our progressive political leaders provided we give them the legal cover, that is pass laws that require them to change their greedy policies. But they are inhibited by law, regardless of their personal inclinations or concerns or benevolence, from really, say, offering to pay higher taxes so that our students can graduate from college without so much debt or making sure that every American has health insurance.

Ever heard of shareholders' lawsuits?

Business's job is to make money for shareholders and the owners. That isn't shameful. But it means that it is up to us as a people to take charge and without destroying our businesses balance the existing corporate mandate with a socially responsible mandate of our own.

We the people need to dominate the commissions that set the course for steadying and correcting our economy. The corporations can follow, but we, as a people, have to be solidly in charge. The corporations can't and shouldn't be expected to propose or even necessarily support the change we need for us. Hillary seems to think they will and should. They won't and shouldn't.

The first step in starting to empower ourselves is to severely limit corporate money and the money of the oligarchs in our political system.

If you do not believe what I am saying about limiting that money, severely limiting that money, read this 2005 article in Rolling Stone on a tour Bernie gave of Congress to a Rolling Stone reporter:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825

I am not saying that business is evil. I don't believe that at all. Rather, it is to say that our system is out of balance. At this time, business and wealthy people (who are also not per se evil) are too powerful, and we the people, are not powerful enough when it comes to deciding national policy.

That is why I am supporting Bernie. I think he has the right approach to establishing a healthy balance between the interests of business (which must be respected to the extent that is healthy for our economy) and the interests of Americans who don't own large numbers of shares in big business or huge companies.

It's about balance. Ronald Reagan took us much too far in the direction of a corporate, big-business-run government, as have all of his successors in the White House and our majorities in Congress regardless of party.

It is time to right the ship of state -- which doesn't mean we impoverish the rich or destroy the multinationals. We the people just have to join together to define their appropriate roles in our society. We cannot expect and should not hope that corporations and business will lead our nation to economic recovery, prosperity for all and economic fairness. IT SIMPLY IS NOT THEIR JOB. They should not define their own role or limitations in our economy. They should obey the laws that we the people get our Congress to pass. That is the way our system should work.

Hillary either does not understand the purposes and functioning of corporations or she is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of good Democrats in this country, over the eyes of the American people.

I want to repeat in order to make it very clear that I think that capitalism can and does improve our lives. It encourages creativity. It has many wonderful aspects. I am not opposed to it. I want a healthy mix of a capitalist business system with social programs that spread the wealth to working people and those who for one reason or another cannot work.

Capitalism is not there to lift up the poor or strengthen the middle class. It isn't focused on social equality or social harmony or many of the things we need to be a livable society. If a gun manufacturer can sell a high-powered gun that efficiently kills people and makes lots of profit for the shareholders in the process, that is what that gun manufacturer will do because its job is to make money for its shareholders.

It's the job of the people and government to determine whether we think that gun manufacturers should be able to sell that highly efficient gun to civilians in our society. We shouldn't do that by making the gun manufacturer liable for the deaths the gun causes. We should do it by prohibiting the sale of the gun to inappropriate buyers in inappropriate situations. That's just one example of a conflict between the corporate value of profit and our human value of the public good.

We have to elect a government that represents our interests and imposes rules and a structure on our economy so that capitalism can thrive without threatening the health of our society.

It's complicated. Bernie gets it. In her speech to the New School for Social Research Hillary showed that she does not.

I'm with Bernie on this. We need a POLITICAL revolution that puts the American people in charge of our government and takes corporate money out of it. That's how I understand what the POLITICAL revolution is.

Read this 2005 article about how Congress works, and I think you will agree with me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825

Feel the Bern!