RUTHFULLY YOURS

Donald Trump is no one’s idea of a traditional Republican, but his speech Tuesday showed the rank-and-file a better way to help workers at the bottom. Democrats pound the need to raise the minimum wage, which is a tricky political issue for the GOP. “Fight for $15” fits well on a protest sign, and it’s easy to paint opponents of a higher minimum wage as heartless, even though their economic reasoning is sound.

Speaking in a Philadelphia suburb, Mr. Trump proposed a new benefit: allowing families to deduct child-care expenses on their income taxes. For a single-parent household with no income-tax liability—the families that Democrats target with their minimum-wage message—this wouldn’t do much good. So Mr. Trump offered an alternative: an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to offset child-care expenses.

The EITC, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975, has for decades been championed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. The word “credit” is a misnomer; the policy is better described as a wage supplement for low-income employees, topping up their income on a sliding scale.

To be eligible for the EITC a person must hold a job and earn income. The size of the annual payment depends not on tax liability, but on how much the employee earns and how many children he or she has. Payments phase out gradually as income rises, to avoid the counterproductive “cliff” effect that characterizes other social-welfare programs.

Economists have found much to like about the policy: A 2008 study, supported in part by my organization and published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, found that when the credit has been expanded in the past, employment of single mothers rose. So did their wages. Mr. Trump would build on this success by further expanding the credit to help cover eligible child-care expenses. The maximum supplement under his plan would be one-half the amount of the employee’s payroll taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare). For married couples, the maximum would be calculated from the lower-earning spouse. CONTINUE AT SITE

Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect.

They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien régime of political correctness.
It remains to be seen what effect Hillary’s five phobias will have on the race, which tightened even before these remarks and Pneumonia-gate. The two events produced one of Mrs. Clinton’s worst weeks in opposite ways.

As with the irrepressible email server, Mrs. Clinton’s handling of her infirmity—“I feel great,” the pneumonia-infected candidate said while hugging a little girl—deepened the hole of distrust she lives in. At the same time, her dismissal, at Barbra Streisand’s LGBT fundraiser, of uncounted millions of Americans as deplorables had the ring of genuine belief.

Perhaps sensing that public knowledge of what she really thinks could be a political liability, Mrs. Clinton went on to describe “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.”

She is of course describing the people in Charles Murray’s recent and compelling book on cultural disintegration among the working class, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” This is indeed the bedrock of the broader Trump base.

One of the most amusing spectacles of this election season has been the whipsawing of the loyalists. Repeatedly, spinners for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been sent out to hammer this or that talking point, only to be left holding the bag when the candidate goes another way.

So far, Trump has been narrowly ahead in this important competition. But after Sunday, Clinton may have taken the lead.

For weeks, the official position of the chattering classes was that any inquiry into Clinton’s health was “sexist.”

As Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on September 2, “I have seen her personally. You’ve seen her personally, Andrea. She is in shape. She is strong. She just has a ton of energy. And I find this actually quite sexist when these guys are saying this. I think that that is not an issue at all and the American voters know that.”

Glamour magazine ran an item headlined, “Yes, It’s Sexist to Speculate about Hillary Clinton’s Health.”

Last week, Clinton herself was asked if discussion of her health was sexist. She replied with a long, ironic “hmmmmmm” that typified her gift for political subtlety and nuance.

The same day, the headline for Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post column captured the prevailing attitude: “Can We Just Stop Talking about Hillary Clinton’s Health Now?”

Five days later, after Clinton’s near-collapse at Ground Zero, another Cillizza column carried this headline: “Hillary Clinton’s Health Just Became a Real Issue in the Presidential Campaign.”

According to the Clinton campaign, Hillary is currently ill with pneumonia. That much we finally learned on Sunday, hours after she suddenly left the 9/11 memorial ceremony she was attending at Ground Zero. She had to be escorted away to her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment to recover from what her campaign spokesperson first described as an “overheated” condition. At the time of the incident, the temperature outside was approximately 80 degrees, with relatively low humidity.

The press traveling with Hillary was first kept in the dark. Had not a video captured her nearly stumbling and being held up to prevent her from falling as she was helped into a van, Hillary’s campaign might not have admitted that anything was wrong at all. Only towards the end of the day did her doctor disclose that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday.

Health is normally a private matter. If Bill or Chelsea Clinton had taken ill, for example, it would be none of our business what was wrong. But Hillary Clinton is running to become the next president and commander-in-chief of the United States. Physical and mental fitness for performance of the duties of the highest and most demanding job in the land is a legitimate public concern. When one runs for the presidency of the United States, the public has a right to know, before they vote, whether the candidates asking for their votes are likely to be capable of performing under intense stress for at least the next four years.

Doubts about Hillary Clinton’s health were already making the rounds on the Internet and cable TV before this latest episode. Such doubts have been fueled by her prolonged coughing fits, stumbles, fainting spells, a concussion and self-proclaimed memory lapses regarding briefings on the handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State. The Clinton campaign and her supporters have tried to label those who have raised legitimate questions regarding Hillary’s health as conspiracists. Clinton aides had gone so far as to belittle a reporter for saying that Hillary looked “low energy” and sounded “absolutely exhausted” at her press conference last Friday and even issued a veiled threat that the reporter’s job was in jeopardy. The reporter had the temerity to tweet: “I half expect her to slump over and collapse any second now.” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s traveling press secretary, tweeted the reporter the message: “delete your account.”

Bill Clinton said during a CBS interview with Charlies Rose on Monday that Hillary Clinton “frequently” faints because of dehydration, but quickly corrected himself to use more Clintonian phrasing: “rarely, but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years.”

Whether the former president made a very revealing Freudian slip or a just a clumsy verbal gaffe is a question those who watched the broadcast last night wouldn’t know to ask because CBS edited out the word “frequently.” In a longer version of the interview that was broadcast on CBS This Morning Tuesday, the word “frequently” was not removed.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

Rose got straight to the point with the former president during the interview, asking how Hillary was doing after she fainted Sunday at a 9/11 memorial event and confessed that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. Clinton said that his wife was doing fine but added that she frequently faints because of dehydration.

“When you look at the collapse, that video that was taken, you wonder if it’s not more serious than dehydration,” Rose said to Clinton.

“No, no. She’s been—well, if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors. ‘Cause frequently—not frequently, that’s not—rarely, but on more than on occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her when she just got severely dehydrated,” Clinton said.

In the edited version of the interview that initially aired, Clinton is only heard saying: “Well, if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors. Rarely, but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her when she just got severely dehydrated.”

Watch the video on the next page. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Clinton entourage is known for their faulty memories under oath, but Bryan Pagliano is setting a new standard. The former Clinton aide chose Tuesday to ignore a congressional subpoena.

The House Oversight Committee held a hearing to dig into some of the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Mr. Pagliano, who worked as an IT specialist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign and set up the private server in her New York residence in 2009, was issued a subpoena compelling attendance.

Mr. Pagliano’s lawyers replied in a letter to the committee that their client couldn’t be bothered. They said that since he’d previously appeared before a different House committee and asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, any effort to make him appear again “furthers no legislative purpose and is a transparent effort to publicly harass and humiliate our client for unvarnished political purposes.”

Two other witnesses who helped maintain Mrs. Clinton’s server— Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton of Platte River Networks—did show up. But then they took the Fifth as well.

Mr. Pagliano might think his presence serves no purpose, but that’s not his call. Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz is conducting a legitimate inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s failure to preserve federal records while Secretary of State. He’s entitled to put questions to those involved with the server that allowed her to take government work off-grid. Mr. Chaffetz says he is considering what action he will take against the subpoena-dodger, but he says that “if anybody is under any illusion that I’m going to let go of this and just let it sail off into the sunset, they are very ill-advised.”

Hillary and Bill Clinton have a remarkable history of friends who are willing to lie, obstruct, and withhold information that would expose them. Webb Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former associate attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, went to jail and still refused to give evidence against her.

Bernard Nussbaum, a prominent lawyer, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow the Department of Justice to review the documents in Vince Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning, Nussbaum; Hillary Clinton; Susan Thomases, her personal counsel; and Maggie Williams, her chief of staff exchanged 10 separate phones calls. That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as “personal” to the Clintons. Thomases and Williams just couldn’t remember a thing when subpoenaed.

Federal officials complained that White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum thwarted a proper search of Foster’s office and files. Nussbaum was forced to resign.

Susan McDougal served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy for failure to answer “three questions” for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. McDougal received a full presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

More recently, Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, did not dispute Bill Clinton’s outrageous claim that during a “serendipitous” meeting on an airplane, Lynch and Clinton did not discuss anything other than “grandchildren.” FBI director Comey risked a sterling reputation to spare Hillary Clinton any legal consequences for the e-mail and classified information scandal.

Now we have the case of Hillary’s health and the most recent syncope episode on Sunday September 11, 2016.

Why is critical information on Hillary’s health being withheld from the public? And by whom?

Her minions are now flooding the news with pictures of Hillary emerging from her daughter’s home…smiling, chatting and repeating: “I feel fine…such a lovely day in New York.”

Questions remain:

When she fainted and was lifted into the van, was she unconscious?

Was she carried up to her daughter’s home? There are no pictures of her entering her daughter’s home.

Who went inside with her?

What medicine or medicines were administered in her daughter’s home?

If her doctor, a reputable internist named Dr. Lisa Bardack, diagnosed pneumonia the Friday before, why was Hillary still planning a tour of the West, and why did she attend the ceremony at Ground Zero? Any doctor would have proscribed such activities in a senior with pneumonia.

What medications is she taking for “allergies” and pneumonia?

Are both lungs affected? Is she contagious? This is pertinent, since she exchanged hugs and kisses with so many dignitaries.

Is she taking medications other than hormones for hypothyroidism and Coumadin?

What accounts for her strange episodes of documented strange head, eyes, and open-mouth grimaces?

What were her symptoms when she was hospitalized for a blood clot in the brain in December 2012, when her daughter was so visibly shaken? Why did initial reports omit the fact that she had had a previous episode in 1988, after developing a clot behind her right knee? Does she have a medical predisposition to clots? Would that affect her travel and schedule?

Furthermore, a 48-hour stay in the hospital for diagnosis and treatment seems very short for such a complex condition.

Will we ever know? Or will doctors or members of her inner circle succeed in hiding, obfuscating, deleting facts, and lying to keep her candidacy viable?

According to the Clinton campaign, Hillary is currently ill with pneumonia. That much we finally learned on Sunday, hours after she suddenly left the 9/11 memorial ceremony she was attending at Ground Zero. She had to be escorted away to her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment to recover from what her campaign spokesperson first described as an “overheated” condition. At the time of the incident, the temperature outside was approximately 80 degrees, with relatively low humidity.

The press traveling with Hillary was first kept in the dark. Had not a video captured her nearly stumbling and being held up to prevent her from falling as she was helped into a van, Hillary’s campaign might not have admitted that anything was wrong at all. Only towards the end of the day did her doctor disclose that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday.

Health is normally a private matter. If Bill or Chelsea Clinton had taken ill, for example, it would be none of our business what was wrong. But Hillary Clinton is running to become the next president and commander-in-chief of the United States. Physical and mental fitness for performance of the duties of the highest and most demanding job in the land is a legitimate public concern. When one runs for the presidency of the United States, the public has a right to know, before they vote, whether the candidates asking for their votes are likely to be capable of performing under intense stress for at least the next four years.

Doubts about Hillary Clinton’s health were already making the rounds on the Internet and cable TV before this latest episode. Such doubts have been fueled by her prolonged coughing fits, stumbles, fainting spells, a concussion and self-proclaimed memory lapses regarding briefings on the handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State. The Clinton campaign and her supporters have tried to label those who have raised legitimate questions regarding Hillary’s health as conspiracists. Clinton aides had gone so far as to belittle a reporter for saying that Hillary looked “low energy” and sounded “absolutely exhausted” at her press conference last Friday and even issued a veiled threat that the reporter’s job was in jeopardy. The reporter had the temerity to tweet: “I half expect her to slump over and collapse any second now.” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s traveling press secretary, tweeted the reporter the message: “delete your account.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, following the lead of the candidate herself, is showing utter contempt for the public’s right to know. They are following the same playbook as they have used when addressing questions regarding Hillary’s private e-mail system and the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation scandal. First comes outright denial that anything is wrong. Then, after inconvenient truths begin to dribble out through sources the Clinton campaign cannot control, comes narrative after narrative constructed to reveal the minimum the campaign believes it can get away with. Rationalizations are offered, including the “everyone does it” or “that’s old news” defenses. Trying to shame or marginalize that portion of the press which is not already in Hillary’s corner is also par for the course.

Leave it to Hillary Clinton to hammer almost 50 million citizens whom she aspires to govern.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right?” Clinton declared Friday as Barbra Streisand and other self-congratulating guests tittered their approval at a $6 million Manhattan fundraiser. “They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”

Surging Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has energized his recently sputtering campaign and now enjoys 43 percent support in today’s RealClearPolitics survey average (vs. 46 percent for Clinton). Thus, among Trump’s current share of America’s 220 million eligible voters, Clinton just threw half of them — roughly 47 million people — under her motorcade.

After triggering a torrent of criticism, Clinton stated, “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong.”

Of course, this is no apology.

I very much regret that Eagles co-founder Glenn Frey died in January. However, I do not apologize for this, as I did not kill him. So, Clinton’s “regret” represents nothing more than her sorrow that she gave herself a throbbing political headache.

And if she got “half” wrong, then — what? — 47 percent of Trump’s supporters are hateful bums? Is it 45 percent? If Clinton has another number in mind, she should specify it.

Clinton’s remarks completely conform with the liberalism that she shares with top Democrats — from K Street to Sunset Boulevard.

As they see it, hordes of the great unwashed live in “flyover country.” They are not educated or elegant enough to have reached Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York, or — the most elevated place of all — Washington, D.C. So, enlightened people like Hillary and her supporters must make decisions for these benighted souls. Thus, Washington should tell these people what to do, every day, all day long. These unsophisticated monsters need adult supervision and, by God, Hillary and her minions will provide it!

In an address this afternoon in Baltimore, Trump denounced Clinton’s terminal elitism with particular passion, eloquence, and even a common touch. Most important, he astutely connected Clinton’s odious personal attitude to her public behavior.

Trump told the National Guard Association that he was “deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear and demean [the] wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign.”