As this campaign season has unfolded, one issue that is usually front and center has been somewhat sidelined. What happened to all the talk about taxes? No need to worry, for Hillary Clinton recently dusted off the old Democrat playbook, and has once again touted the need to raise taxes on the rich. Except that during a campaign stop in Omaha, Clinton said, “Because while Warren [Buffett] is standing up for a fairer tax code, Trump wants to cut taxes for the super-rich. Well, we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you, right now — we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!” Though the crowd roared, it’s safe to assume Clinton misspoke. But knowing Hillary it’s also safe to assume it was a Freudian slip.

Adding up the numbers, Clinton has called for a tax increase of $1.3 trillion over 10 years as a means to support her political agenda of redistribution. Two of her priciest polices are an increase in paid family leave coverage of up to 12 weeks and her “College Compact” plan that would provide free community college tuition to students who work 10 hours a week. Hillary claims that her plan of raising taxes on the rich will cover these expensive plans. But according to the American Action Forum, Clinton’s math comes up short by an estimated $2.2 trillion. In other words, Clinton would not only significantly raise taxes, she would also substantially add to the ballooning national debt that currently stands at $19.4 trillion.

Clinton has pledged to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, yet she has stated that she would have no problem with increasing the payroll tax or even placing a tax on soda, and she has endorsed a 25% national gun tax. She is also open to considering some form of a carbon tax. When her buddy George Stephanopoulos asked if her pledge to not increase taxes on the middle class was “rock-solid,” she hedged, saying it was her “goal.”

Democrats like Hillary Clinton firmly believe that the government is entitled to more of your money than you are. They believe they know how to spend it better. As with all Marxian ideals, the needs and wants of the individual are inconsequential compared to the “needs” and goals of those in power.