Hillary Clinton says businesses don’t create jobs. Uh-oh.

Hillary Clinton said this at a recent campaign event: 'Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.' Conservatives pounced. Liberals are pleading for context.

Stephan Savoia/AP
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a campaign event for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston, Friday, Oct. 24, 2014.

[Updated 2:40 p.m.] Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent comment about trickle-down economics has launched a war of spin – and an effort Monday by Mrs. Clinton to correct herself.

First, here’s what the likely 2016 presidential candidate said at a campaign event last Friday for Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” former Secretary of State Clinton said in Boston. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’ ”

That first sentence is similar to a gaffe President Obama made in his 2012 reelection campaign, when he said: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” His GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, pounded him mercilessly over that one (though Mr. Romney still lost).

“It’s Hillary Clinton’s ‘You Didn’t Build That Moment’ – and it’s a safe bet that the quote will come back to haunt her,” writes Benjamin Austin at FreePatriot.org.

On Monday, Clinton responded to the kerfuffle in comments at a campaign appearance for Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney in upstate New York. 

Nan Hayworth, Congressman Maloney’s rival, represents “a discredited economic theory that will hurt middle-class families,” Clinton said, according to a report in Politico. “I shorthanded this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear on what [I’ve been saying for decades]. Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up.… Not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Regardless of how one interprets Clinton’s original comment, there’s little doubt the former first lady’s opponents will use it against her in the presidential campaign, if she runs.

It’s not Clinton’s first gaffe of the unofficial 2016 race. This past June, when she released her latest book, “Hard Choices,” she said she and her husband, the ex-president, came out of the White House in 2001 “dead broke.” For a couple that could command multimillion-dollar book deals and six-figure speaking gigs, the comment seemed strangely off. PolitiFact.com rated it “mostly false.”

As before, liberal watchdog groups are jumping in to defend her, calling for a look at the context.

“The full transcript of her remarks shows she was making the established observation that minimum wage increases can boost a sluggish economy by generating demand, and that tax breaks for the rich don't necessarily move companies to create jobs,” writes the group Media Matters.

Conservative and liberal economists have long been at war over the effectiveness of trickle-down (or supply-side) economics – the idea that cutting taxes and regulations frees up capital and allows businesses to grow – including hiring more workers.

The 2016 race is upon us. Everything Clinton says in public will be parsed within an inch of its life -- and already is. Politicians often plead, “Out of context,” when caught saying something off-key. But in the sound-bite reality of political life, Clinton may find it easier just to make sure everything she says, sentence by sentence, sounds good on its own.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.