Kamala’s Plan Causes Intense Debate
Ladies and gentlemen, the political arena is buzzing with intense discussions as Kamala Harris’ economic policy proposals are drawing serious criticism from all sides—even from traditionally supportive corners of the media. In what’s become a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, mainstream publications are now urging Harris to rethink her economic agenda, which they argue mirrors some of the failed policies of the Soviet Union and modern-day Venezuela.
Let’s start with The Washington Post. The Editorial Board recently published a sharp op-ed titled, “The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.” In this piece, the Post didn’t hold back, arguing that Harris missed a crucial opportunity to present meaningful economic solutions, instead opting for “gimmicks” like price controls that history has shown don’t work.
Harris has been pointing fingers at big businesses, blaming them for the inflation crisis that many attribute to the Biden-Harris administration’s own policies. She’s vowed to target companies that make what she calls “excessive” profits—a term that the Post aptly points out is vague at best.
Critics have been quick to compare her ideas to President Richard Nixon’s failed price controls from the 1970s, which only exacerbated economic woes rather than alleviating them. The Post suggests that, if sound economic analysis still holds any weight, Harris’ proposal is unlikely to win over voters.
Another significant point of concern raised by the Post is Harris’ plan to offer $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. While this might sound appealing on the surface, the Post warns that this approach could actually drive home prices higher by stimulating demand without addressing supply issues.
Worse still, the plan could add trillions of dollars to the national deficit over the next decade, according to a nonpartisan budget watchdog. In conclusion, the Post didn’t mince words, labeling Harris’ policy ideas as “a disappointment,” even by the usual standards of campaign economics.
But it’s not just The Washington Post raising alarms. CNN, in a news article penned by an economic reporter, echoed these concerns. The article, titled “Harris’ plan to stop price gouging could create more problems than it solves,” features input from economists who are skeptical of Harris’ approach.
Gavin Roberts, chair of the economics department at Weber State University, argues that price controls could lead consumers to overconsume goods, exacerbating shortages rather than solving the underlying issues. He suggests that the government’s best course of action might be to simply do nothing, allowing market forces to adjust naturally.
Even Jason Furman, a prominent economist who served under President Obama, weighed in, describing Harris’ policies as “not sensible” and expressing hope that these ideas remain more rhetoric than reality. Furman didn’t see any upside to Harris’ proposals, signaling that they could do more harm than good.