Why Hillary Lost

Hillary lost because she was perceived by the press and the voters as the candidate of the establishment - and she was. But most of the members of the Washington Establishment that I know are hard working caring people who are trying to govern well. Unfortunately, they operate in a bubble and don't understand why the average American feels the government is the cause of their problems.

Despite numerous reports, most of the politicians don't seem to be aware that most of the lobbyists' proposals they have adopted have hurt the average American and benefitted the very rich and the multinational companies.

For the last 30 years, middle class Americans have lost income and social status despite playing by the rules, getting an education, working hard, etc. This is particularly true of Hillary's economic advisers, most of whom are Bob Rubin acolytes who think that so long as Wall Street and the big banks are making a profit, the rest of the economy will do well too.

And the Republicans, although pledging support for the hard working Americans, have led the way to protecting the same economic elite. That is why almost all the economic gains are concentrated in the top 1% and even more in the top 0.01% and the financial share of the U.S. economy has almost tripled.

Ironically, the media doesn't not understand that the ones who are really hurting the middle class are the Republicans like Cruz who are pushing the tax cut theology (which the evidence shows doesn't work, .eg. Kansas, but increases the deficit) and proposals like "territorial taxation" that will subsidize all multinational corporations to export even more jobs and profits while retaining the benefits of being located in the U.S.

Under territorial taxation all profits multinational corporations claim they earn offshore would not be taxed. Thus, every multinational which follows the current philosophy that its only obligation is to its shareholders, would almost be obligated to shift jobs and profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes and maximize profits. It would also increase their competitive advantage over domestic companies which compete against them while paying taxes they avoid.

If Hillary is to shed the image of the establishment candidate, there are ample opportunities to point out that it is the Republican candidates and not her that are supporting positions that will only benefit the very rich and the multinational corporations. Right now inversions are a hot topic as they should be.

The fact that Johnson Controls and Pfizer have received billions in taxpayer subsidies and are now abandoning their U.S. citizenship so they can avoid baring the burden that not so fortunate American taxpayers have to pay has provoked outrage.

Hillary could propose legislation to prevent earning striping by multinational corporations. She could eliminate deferral of taxes on foreign income. Or she could eliminate the system of transfer pricing that enables these abuses and go the system most states use: apportionment of income by the location of sales or sales, personnel and property. Any one of these proposals would substantially cut the current tax loss from multinational corporations which is estimated to be between $77 and $111 billion a year. That could fund a lot of necessary infrastructure repairs and create lots of domestic jobs.

At the very least, it would alert the press that they are missing the real story of who is trying to help the average voter and taxpayer and focus attention