Staff Reports
Kamala Harris is revving the engine on her first big federal drive, and it’s fueled by the government’s ever-expanding role in the economy. With American families feeling the pinch in their wallets, she has unveiled a plan that appears to have been designed by someone who must think the economy is just Monopoly money. While she claims to be tackling soaring grocery prices and an inaccessible housing market, her policies read more like a recipe for disaster than a solution.
In a recent speech in North Carolina, Harris promised to swoop in like a superhero with price controls to save the day. Apparently, the Vice President believes that capping prices on food will magically bring down grocery bills. This is reminiscent of an old-school comic where the heroes triumph with convenient but unrealistic solutions. She even plans to introduce federal penalties for companies accused of price gouging. One can almost hear the faint echoes of laughter from those familiar with history—payment plans in the form of hammers and sickles.
Kamala Harris goes big on economic policy, Trump calls it ‘full communisthttps://t.co/NJQgiBwrWZ pic.twitter.com/HWYvrohcZ7
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) August 19, 2024
Former President Donald Trump didn’t hold back when critiquing Harris’ latest antics, labeling her proposals as “full communist” and suggesting that her economic platform will only drive the already wobbly American economy further into a tailspin. Trump retorted that her call for socialist price controls is not only unoriginal but a proven recipe for failure. Florid visions of soaring inflation and empty store shelves danced through the minds of those who saw familiar lines at the grocery store in the 1970s.
Though Harris’ plan presents itself as an upgrade to the existing Biden economy, it has a suspiciously heavier dose of government meddling. Her proposal includes a $25,000 taxpayer-funded down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, not to mention a slew of other spending measures. One has to wonder if she understands that picking winners and losers in the housing market often has more consequences than intended. Only in the eyes of government officials can subsidizing homeownership be seen as a sound plan without causing an inflation backlash.
And while Harris wishes to sprinkle fairy dust on the economy, some economists express skepticism. Their fear is that a heavy hand from the government will lead to empty shelves and stalled growth. On the opposing side, Trump is advocating for tariffs on imported goods, which he argues are necessary to protect American jobs. Critics may point to the price hikes attributed to tariffs, but it can’t be denied that at least there’s a coherent rationale—rather than the vague wishful thinking Harris is perpetuating.
It seems the competing visions for America’s economic future are stark. One side proposes reliance on market-driven solutions, while the other leans on more regulations and interventions from government. As the debate rages on, average Americans are left looking for answers, not more government intervention that promises “pride” and “security.” Harris’ proposals may have the makings of a progressive pep rally, but the real outcome could be an economic hangover for the ages.
