The Democratic candidates who will present the party’s ideas in Tuesday’s nationally televised primary debate in Las Vegas are in agreement on the need for strict regulation of the financial sector and an increase in the federal minimum wage. They’re also wary of the invisible hand of international commerce. They oppose a trade agreement in the Pacific negotiated by President Barack Obama along with the construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian tar to refineries on the Gulf Coast. That former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, the party’s leading contenders, are in agreement on these points can obscure the fact that they haven’t yet come to a consensus on several important points.
Minimum wage
Clinton, O’Malley and Sanders agree that the federal minimum wage should be raised. The sticking point is by how much.
O’Malley and Sanders support a national floor on wages of $15 an hour. That’s a crucial number for many workers, yet some prominent economists warn that doubling the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and then some, could be counterproductive. If the minimum wage is so high that employers don’t make money by bringing more hands on deck, then they’ll hire fewer people, and it will be harder for low-wage workers to get a job.
Clinton has not said exactly how much she thinks workers should be paid at a minimum. This year, Clinton called into a conference of workers agitating for a $15 minimum wage to offer her general support, but she did not commit to that figure. During the summer, she had approving words for legislation in Congress that would raise the minimum to $12 an hour. Beyond that, she said, “Let’s not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there.”
Social Security
Sanders and O’Malley think too few workers have enough money to save for retirement, leaving them in a difficult financial position when they retire. Younger people who hope to retire comfortably one day confront another kind of risk, too. The program’s trust fund will be exhausted in about two decades, if current trends hold.
To pay for expanded benefits, O’Malley and Sanders have suggested increasing taxes on workers with incomes above $250,000. Sanders has proposed a tax on capital gains in excess of that figure, so his plan would likely do more to improve Social Security’s finances over the long term. The program’s trustees have forecast that Sanders’ proposal would allow beneficiaries to be paid in full for the next five decades or so.
Clinton, though, has not yet said what she thinks should be done about Social Security’s solvency. This year, she said the next president should “make sure it is there, and we do not mess with it.” Clinton has indicated she would consider a tax along the lines of those proposed by O’Malley and Sanders.
The big banks
Clinton’s campaign released a detailed proposal on financial reform last week, calling for corporate leaders whose companies violate the law to face harsh penalties. They could be barred from working in any finance position and, in some cases, serve terms in prison under Clinton’s plan. The document also calls for limits on computerized trading on the stock exchanges that critics say shortchanges investors and destabilizes markets.
In one respect, though, Clinton’s proposal did not go as far as O’Malley’s and Sanders’ on bank regulation. She did not advocate for the restoration of a law dating to the Great Depression that prohibited firms from combining risky investment banking (the business that makes the big bucks on Wall Street) with ordinary retail banking (the business you do when you stop by the bank down the street).
Clinton’s husband repealed that law, known as the Glass-Steagall Act, during his presidency. It’s one decision he made that his wife does not intend to reverse. O’Malley and Sanders would ask Congress to re-enact it.
Gun control
Clinton and O’Malley argue for stricter gun control. Clinton would require not just customers at licensed gun dealerships to submit to a background check, according to a plan published by her campaign, but also some sellers doing business online or at gun shows. She would bypass Congress if necessary, using her executive authority as president if elected.
She’d make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who couldn’t pass a background check on his own.
O’Malley’s proposal goes further. He would require authorities to fingerprint anyone who wants to buy a gun, and he would make it illegal for any American under age 21 to possess a handgun. He would set new federal standards for gun locks to prevent accidents at home, and he would establish a national registry of gun sales to make it easier for cops to trace a weapon recovered at the scene of a crime to its owner.
Sanders voted to expand background checks after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and he has consistently supported a ban on assault weapons.
