What are the odds of success for plans that simultaneously punish companies, force new mandates on them, and shovel tax breaks and handouts their way? If the past 15 or so years—rife with just these sorts of mixed, schizophrenic incentives—are any indcation, the answer is: less than zero.Plus a reminder of who it was that caused the mess in the first place.
It's nice to hear Clinton fret over a "shrinking pie." It would be better still if her plans didn't lead precisely to such an outcome.Thus as Stephen "Vodka Pundit" Green notes, it's important to keep the House and the Senate from becoming rubber stamps for the Dowager Empress.
Remember the legislative damage done by Democrat supermajorities in just two years following Barack Obama's election?It is also no accident that there were Democrat majorities in the House and Senate commencing in 2006; the financial crash that came after might have (research opportunity) come with.
2009-2011 gave us the failed, trillion-dollar stimulus, the slow-motion trainwreck called ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank's shotgun marriage between Wall Street and Washington, the virtual militarization of the EPA, and so many others.
Perhaps the GOP House and Senate have disappointed you, but they've kept the lid on discretionary spending, and haven't succumbed to the progressive temptation to DO SOMETHING COMPREHENSIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING, like Obama's short-lived Democratic supermajority did.
A properly gridlocked House and Senate also offer a check on the wilder impulses a President Trump would exhibit. But watching Naggin' Hillary's eyes bug out whenever she pitches a hissy fit at Congress might be the sole consolation during her presidency.