Hillary Clinton, presidential hopeful, is advancing her bid for the Democratic nomination in leaps and bounds. The past two weeks have given her increased exposure and favorable press. It all started on September 17th when she unveiled her revised universal health-care plan to generally favorable reaction despite it being immediately dubbed “hillarycare 2.0”. Then on September 23rd she was a guest on no less than five different Sunday talk shows leading in to a polished performance in a Democratic debate in New Hampshire and a speech at a forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.

At the forum the presidential hopeful called for a government “baby bond” of $5,000 for each and every child born in the United States. It was the day after the Republican Presidential candidates sidestepped a debate on minority issues. Avoiding public debates used to be a seen as ducking the issues. With the advent of 24/7 internet coverage of political campaigning this is no longer the case because it is no longer possible.

At times an election year can seem like a never-ending loop of TV re-runs; talking heads touting the same trite ideas over and over all made to offend as little as possible while seeking to enthuse and motivate voters, in a nutshell the less waves the better. The core issues are the same: abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, social security, taxes and the “future of America” with the recent addition of the war in Iraq.

Presidential hopefuls, and elected officials, have learned the hard way to tow the party line on the emotional issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriages, which should have no true place in politics; all that is except for Giuliani. For all the press coverage that immigration has been getting it is nonetheless clear that the central issue in the 2008 elections will be the war in Iraq. Understandable but a sad way to decide a Presidential election; tying in political fortunes with events taking place more than 6,000 miles away and ignoring the fact that the running of a country starts at home with Social Security reform, Health Care and of course, tax reform, tax breaks and the “future of America’s youth”.

With the idea of a “baby bond” and her recent Health Care proposal Hillary Clinton is bringing the election home.

The baby bond concept was first proposed by Clinton in 2006, as part of the American Dream Act, giving each and every child born in the United States a government funded $500 bond. No there is no zero missing; a year ago the ‘baby bond’ was for only $500 and, as critics are quick to point out, Friday’s increase to $5,000 represents a 1,000% increase in 12 months.

Clinton calls this part of a Democratic effort to strengthen the middle classes and ensure that all have access to higher education. The catch? They must finish high school. If they didn't spend the cash on college costs, Clinton said the children could tap into the taxpayer-provided funds to put a down payment on a home.
Given that Federal census shows approximately 4 million babies born in the US every year the cost of such a program would be close to $20 billion (not counting administrative costs) and no mention has been made of where the necessary funds would come from. All on can really expect is that left untouched and earning a standard 3 percent interest, the $5,000 baby boon would build to $8,512 by the time toddlers turned 18.

What can be compared to a European Socialist-style plan so far contains no guarantees the money would be used for college tuition or a house down payment; it also provides no measures for funding, implementation, disbursement or application to scholarships and financial aid, evaluation or even administrative oversight. Basically, as Blake Zeff, a Clinton campaign spokes person was quick to point out the baby-bonds program “is not a firm policy proposal but an idea under consideration.”

One of the reasons it is under consideration, apart from better access to college or buying a home, is reinforcing a tradition of savings which we seem to have lost. She argues that wealthy people “have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people cannot afford to do that…” and therefore do not have access to the American Dream.
While such a program is a step in the right direction toward leveling the playing field to allow the talented, but economically disadvantaged, to contribute what they can in bettering American society it does not address fundamental issues in higher education costs and access. For a full judgment to be made on such a policy plan a complete outline would be necessary.

This step in the right direction which Ms. Clinton calls “an investment in America’s young people” comes on the heels of her revised health care plan offering coverage for all Americans. This revamping of a most controversial issue includes no large government bureaucracy proving that the candidate has learned her lesson from “Hillarycare”.

Just as with the Baby bond other candidates were quick to dismiss her proposal, but perhaps it is simply because hers is more comprehensive and better-crafted than theirs. All three Democratic Candidates aim to help the 45+million uninsured get coverage. The most important component of her plan is its universal mandate - all individuals big and small would be required to purchase health insurance (just as under Mr. Edward’s plan and as under a new program implemented in the state of Massachusetts). Such a universal mandate can raise the cost of health insurance yet Ms. Clinton, and only her, includes a reform tax break for employer-based coverage, imposes a cap on the maximum premium any family would have to pay for health insurance (covering the rest as necessary with subsidies) and, last but not least, while she requires all firms to offer plans she also provides for a small firm subsidy.

All these subsidies add up; more than $20 billion for the baby bond and close to $110 billion per year for universal health care. With the specter of “hillarycare” no doubt present in her mind, Ms. Clinton has lined her ducks up in a row and detailed how she would cover the costs. One way is to roll back President Bush’s recent tax cuts for the richest people. Other ways include cost-saving measures in the health care sector with the implementation of electronic medical records, greater use of information technology and so on. Independent experts have weighed in that such measures would indeed create big savings but would not be easy to implement especially in the short term which would increase the foreseen costs by as much as 75% bringing it closer to $200 billion per year.

Nonetheless her plan is the only one that proposes to reform the employer tax break for providing health insurance, a distortion which Jonathan Gruber at MIT has calculated costs the taxpayer $225 billion a year and which could be used to finance the plan.

Overall it was a good end to September for Hillary Clinton, even with recent backlash.

She has won the praise of several lawmakers and political pundits for her courage in addressing issues crossing party platforms and going beyond presidential election politics as usual. She has reached out and spoken in favor of stem cell research, government reform, environmental clean-up and a “determination to end “American cowboy diplomacy”, all subjects which most political candidates do their best to avoid. Advancing fearlessly on topics which are a minefield has done much to helping her win endorsements from a variety of sources including many Congressional Black Caucus members despite competition from Senator Barack Obama who stands to become the first black President. Such support only increases Clinton’s sizeable advantage in her bid for the Democratic nomination as does the public approval garnered by her latest campaign policy plans. Of course there is no guarantee that such plans could be implemented but still Hillary Clinton has gathered steam and is quickly becoming “the train that could”.

In fact she now appears as the favorite to win the Democratic Party nomination. George Bush has already declared that he believes she will. Other candidates believe so as well since not only are Republicans such as Giuliani dubbing themselves “Hillary-slayers” but also Democrats are no longer sniping at each other’s heels, preferring to concentrate their attacks on her. The backlash is starting to extend to the press and while being “frontrunner” is a dangerous thing in politics, paving the way for problems ahead and the adage “the higher they climb the harder the fall”, the arguments advanced so far are not convincing. Yes voters tend to decide at the last minute, yes there could a personal scandal – especially with Hillary and Bill and all the baggage that entails. But Ms. Clinton runs a tight highly-disciplined political machine, one that is well-oiled and well-used to dealing with criticism. Recent weeks have proven that and it is good to keep in mind that even with all the scandal when Bill Clinton left office he did so with a job-approval rating of 66%; much higher than many other presidents (not to point any fingers).

Even if the Republican Party is quick to note that, as the Economist put it, “the Democrats have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” it was indeed a good end of September for Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton; one that has shown her as the best and the brightest of all the candidates running for Presidential nomination. Now if only she doesn’t fail the other interviews or mess up on the final exam…This is not to say she will or should win the Presidential nomination and eventual election, just that she could. If so it will irrefutably show the progress made since Geraldine Ferraro’s failed run as Vice-President in 1984. It would show that maybe the United States is ready for a woman President or more exactly – and more importantly – we are finally ready, able and willing to elect the best person for the job, regardless of gender, race or creed. Which is just as it should be.