On July 24, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued her “American Dream Initiative,” a policy agenda that will presumably be the centerpiece of her presidential campaign. Although Clinton is the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, her 20-page plan was relegated to the New York Region section of the national edition of the New York Times, eclipsed by her husband’s joint appearance that day with beleaguered Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. But Clinton’s program deserves wide distribution. In fact, her Democratic rivals should send it out in mass mailings. Clinton’s plan shows just how little she has to offer America after eight years of George W. Bush, and confirms her lack of commitment to a progressive agenda.

Since Senator Hillary Clinton’s support of the Iraq war will not help her win over Democratic primary voters in 2008, one would think she would use her domestic program to secure progressive support. But her recently released policy prescriptions show that Clinton has little to offer those seeking meaningful measures to increase social and economic justice.

According to Clinton, the motto for the 2008 campaign is “It’s the American Dream, stupid.” This takeoff on her husband’s 1992 “it’s the economy, stupid” is a great campaign theme----but Clinton’s proposals reflect a downsized American Dream that will do little to excite the Democratic base.

What is Hillary Clinton’s bold agenda for the future? Let’s start with her plan for “baby bonds,” wherein the government gives $500 bonds to babies at birth and at age 10.

It is hard to see what is “progressive” about giving every child, even wealthy children, $1000.00. “Baby bonds” sounds like a clever name for the Republican Party’s longstanding support for increasing per-child tax credits. This program offers too little to improve life opportunities for low-income children, and fails to target primary assistance to the working families who need it most.

Clinton also proposes a whopping $3000 college tax credit. That will not even make up for the Bush Administration’s recently imposed higher interest rates on student loans. Nor will it make up for steep tuition hikes imposed on state institutions across America due to federal funds being spent on Iraq rather than on education.

Clinton does focus on low-income people in her plan to expand the home mortgage deduction to those who do not itemize their tax returns. But how many people are in this category, given that home prices across America have put ownership out of reach for the vast majority of low-income people?

If Clinton really wanted to give low-income people tax help around housing she would propose a national renters tax credit. This would put money into low-income people’s pockets throughout America, whereas her current plan only applies in those rare communities where poor people can afford to buy.

In case the above ideas are not scintillating enough, Clinton also proposes “ American dream accounts” which requires companies to enable workers to save for retirement through 401(k) accounts. There is nothing bad about this, but a progressive policy would also prevent large corporations from avoiding payment on existing pension plans, which has become the new trend across corporate America.

In total, Clinton offers a vision of the American Dream that is a shadow of what young workers were once promised. Her plans would fit right in with the former Gerald Ford wing of the Republican Party, and only come from a Democrat in 2006 because the GOP has moved so far to the right.

Considering that Bush’s approval ratings are in the low 30’s, and that most of America believes the nation is headed in the wrong direction, Clinton’s unwillingness to boldly chart a new direction is bad policy and even worse politics. Hillary Clinton may be the pundits’ favorite, but Democratic primary voters will be looking elsewhere in 2008.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org