About two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton, responding to a question at a Congressional Black Caucus conference, mentioned in an off-hand remark the idea of $5,000 “baby bonds,” a policy proposal that’s been floating around think tanks for years. The idea is the government would issue a bond for every baby born in the U.S., which could be tapped only for big expenses such as college. It could, the senator said, “be a good way to get them started on a lifetime of saving and growing wealth.”
Larry Sabato said this was “one of the few mistakes Hillary Clinton has made in her campaign.” The far-right Washington Times argued today that the off-hand comment is so serious, it could undermine Clinton’s presidential chances.
Republican strategists say Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s call for giving every newborn $5,000 for education is the first major mistake in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
They say it undermines the centrist image the New York Democrat has carefully built and, if exploited skillfully, could prove fatal in the 2008 general election.
“I’m shocked that more Republican candidates haven’t taken on ‘Hillary Bonds,’ ” Pennsylvania political consultant Charles Gerow said. “This is a layup for GOP hopefuls.”
Rudy Giuliani was the only candidate to seriously attack Clinton over the idea, which he described as “socialist,” and which he compared to George McGovern’s policy agenda from 1972. (The attack lost some salience when we learned that that Giuliani voted for McGovern at the time.)
The Washington Times quoted some Republican insiders saying they were relieved more GOP candidates downplayed the idea, because they’re afraid Clinton’s suggestion is so radical, it could undermine her chances at winning the Democratic nomination. “I think that almost all Republican voters saw this plan as so outrageous that we had hoped that Hillary would not be challenged on this by any of our candidates, as it will be a great talking point during the general election battle,” said Rick Beltram, the Republican Party chairman in Spartanburg County, S.C. Beltram added, “We are so hopeful that she will be the Democratic nominee.”
I have no idea why Republicans are so excited about this.
First, Clinton hasn’t actually endorsed this policy. After the CBC event, Clinton told reporters this was “just an idea I threw out,” because she’s “looking for a conversation.” The WSJ reported today, “Clinton confirmed she wouldn’t propose a $5,000 ‘baby bond’ as a savings incentive.”
It was just a candidate straying from her talking points to mention an idea that policy experts have been floating for years. No biggie.
Second, as Matt Yglesias noted, the idea itself is hardly crazy.
Nick Beaudrot, baby bonds fan and John Edwards fan, notes that his idol “has said good things about these sorts of plans before.” Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pioneered a similar policy in the United Kingdom several years ago. Ray Boshara at the New America Foundation is also a longtime advocate of these measures, and it goes even further back to Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott’s book, The Stakeholder Society.
One of the main policies that made the United States we know and love was the Homestead Act of the 19th century. The question this was intended to address was how to dispose of the vast land mass that the country was in the process of stealing from its native inhabitants. One way to do this would have been to auction it off to the highest bidder. Wealthy investors would have bought large estates and hired overseers and tenants to farm the land while living back home in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, wherever. Instead, the congress guaranteed a small farm to anyone willing to move west and live and work on the land, building a property owning democracy of smallholders wherein ownership of the means of production (viz. land) was widely distributed.
Baby bonds could and should be a step toward creating a 21st century version of a society lack that — one in which every citizen who works hard and obeys the law gets to share in the prosperity that’s created by everyone’s labor together.
This was hardly a Clinton gaffe, but to hear the reaction, candidates aren’t supposed to have any spontaneous discussions at all. The overreaction here is kind of crazy.