During her victory speech last night, Hillary Clinton talked about not building walls — but rather building “ladders of opportunity” for Americans. Here is what she said:
Because you know what? It works. Instead of building walls we’re going to break down barriers and build … (APPLAUSE)
… build ladders of opportunity and empowerment so every American can live up to his or her potential, because then and only then can America live up to its full potential too.
I assume her statement about not building walls is a reference to Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall to stop illegal immigration. But while I agree with her that this is a terrible idea, her promise to break down barriers is laughable. In fact when she says that she wants to tear down barriers, you should read “I will build even more government walls around your lives and I will make you pay for it with taxes, lost opportunities, and higher unemployment.” That’s right, the policy proposals she has been touting on the campaign trail make it clear that “the ladders of opportunity and empowerment” she is talking about are made of more government regulations and spending and are guaranteed to slow down opportunities for Americans.
For instance, she has made it very clear that she wants to destroy the sharing economy and all the opportunities it has given millions of Americans — all in the name preserving and reinforcing a rigid workplace arrangement. She is also promising multiple government “investments” (read: “spending”) and strong-arming of businesses to institute a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, earned sick days, a right to child care, President Obama’s mandated overtime, and all that good stuff (read: more tried and failed policies) — none of which has worked out so well in Europe.
Last year, the New York Times ran what should have been an eye-opening piece that looked at the many ways numerous Clintonian policies backfired, discouraged employment, and cut wages in countries where they have been implemented.
But who cares right? Clinton is trying to distract us from the negative consequences of the policies she wants by claiming that Uber and other permissionless innovators are exploiting workers and should be told what to pay their employees and how they should manage their businesses by know-it-all politicians like her.
At a time when policies she endorsed — such as the war in Iraq and the Affordable Care Act — make it clear just how incompetent lawmakers are at creating policies, not to mention the negative consequences politicians’ decisions can have on our lives, Clinton is trying to make us respect the wisdom of politicians and the laws she intends to enact.