Kamala Harris has vowed to reduce food prices, which have surged by 20-40% since she became Vice President. However, this inflation is largely a result of her and Joe Biden’s policies. Any government attempts to lower prices, whether through price caps or subsidies, could harm the economy, leading to shortages, further price hikes, and increased taxes. Her broader economic plans appear equally detrimental.
Harris’s economic agenda leans heavily on socialist principles, disregards basic economic realities, and overlooks the potential harm these policies could cause. Like other socialist platforms, her plan would increase dependency on the government, diminish work incentives, and lower the overall standard of living. She promises to create an “opportunity economy,” cut taxes, provide affordable housing, combat price gouging, and reduce costs for families. While these ideas may sound commendable, government intervention is likely to exacerbate problems rather than solve them.
Harris’s “Opportunity Economy” aims to enable everyone to build wealth, regardless of their starting point. However, the U.S. system already offers opportunities for economic advancement. Those in low-wage jobs are not there because of a lack of opportunity, but often due to limited skills or impractical educational choices, such as degrees in DEI or gender studies.
Part of her “opportunity economy” includes tens of billions in loans for minority entrepreneurs. Providing loans based on race or gender contradicts the principles of the Civil Rights movement. Moreover, entrepreneurs with solid business plans can secure funding from banks or private investors, who base their decisions on potential profitability. Government programs, on the other hand, risk funding ventures that wouldn’t meet the criteria of banks or investors.
The plan also includes government-sponsored training in critical skills. The issue is that the government is ill-equipped to identify which skills are needed, where, and in what quantities. The market already efficiently handles this, which is why gender studies majors struggle to find jobs while plumbers are in high demand. The private sector is far better suited to responding to labor market needs without government interference that can distort supply and demand.
Despite her plan to increase government spending, Harris also wants to cut taxes. She has proposed making the expanded Child Tax Credit permanent, which was temporarily increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conservatives have long warned that such temporary measures could become permanent. She also supports expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which can create disincentives to work and increase dependency on government assistance. Instead of distributing more government money, the focus should be on reducing government size and spending to allow a truly free market to thrive, where individuals can keep more of their earnings without relying on selective government intervention.
One of the most damaging aspects of Harris’s plan is her approach to affordable housing. She has proposed increasing federal funding for affordable housing programs, expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), and creating new incentives for developers to build affordable units. She also supports boosting funding for the Housing Choice Voucher Program to help low-income families access housing. However, these programs encourage private developers to build housing rented out at below-market rates, which will likely lead to an oversupply of subsidized housing and drive up prices for everyone else.
Her Rent Relief Initiatives, reminiscent of the damaging economic policies during COVID-19, make it harder for landlords to evict tenants who don’t pay rent. Consequently, landlords will protect themselves by scrutinizing potential renters more closely, charging higher rents, and demanding larger security deposits. If rent price caps are imposed, apartment shortages will result, as the demand for cheaper apartments rises while supply decreases, leading developers to stop building new units and landlords to take properties off the market.
Harris’s approach to combating price gouging is based on a flawed concept. Sellers typically charge market prices—if the price is too high, consumers won’t buy, and prices will fall. Since Biden took office, inflation has exceeded 20%, and gas prices have doubled. Minimum wage hikes in many areas have also increased production costs, leading to higher prices. Harris proposes empowering the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take more aggressive action against companies allegedly exploiting consumers, particularly during crises. This could lead to government inspectors determining if prices qualify as gouging and forcing companies to lower them. However, this approach risks creating shortages, as companies cannot afford to sell products below cost or at an arbitrary government-mandated maximum price.
Her plan to lower costs for families includes reducing healthcare costs, but this primarily involves government subsidies that don’t actually lower prices—they merely reduce out-of-pocket expenses for the consumer, meaning taxpayers foot the bill. Since the government is not price-sensitive, healthcare providers could raise prices for all Americans.
Under Kamala Harris’s leadership, working people could face higher taxes, rising prices, and an economy where government assistance becomes more attractive than employment for many.
