Washington Post Critiques Harris for ‘Populist Gimmicks’ in Economic Plan

The Washington Post Editorial Board recently criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for her newly unveiled economic agenda, deeming it filled with “populist gimmicks.” In an editorial published on Friday, the board expressed disappointment that Harris’s speech did not provide a concrete plan for how her administration would tackle the economic challenges many voters face.

Harris launched her economic strategy during a rally in North Carolina, presenting a range of policy proposals including tax credits aimed at families and homeowners, and a proposed federal ban on price gouging for groceries. This agenda directly addresses the economy, which is anticipated to be a crucial issue in the 2024 presidential election. The campaign has indicated that these proposals will form priorities within the first 100 days of a Harris presidency.

Despite the goal of rallying the public, especially those grappling with rising inflation, the Washington Post’s editorial board found the Vice President’s approach lacking in substance. While acknowledging the need to address inflation, the board accused Harris of avoiding a direct discussion on its causes. Instead of confronting voters with a clear explanation—that inflation surged in 2021 largely due to pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions and actions by the Federal Reserve which the current administration endorsed—Harris opted to attribute the problem primarily to corporate greed.

A key component of her announcement was the proposal to outlaw price gouging. This would empower the Federal Trade Commission to take action against grocery industry corporations. However, the editorial questioned the clarity of this proposal, calling it “vaguely defined” and expressing uncertainty about how excessive profits would be determined within an industry typically characterized by narrow margins.

Despite their critique, the editorial board did offer praise for several specific proposals within Harris’s plan. They highlighted her ambition to construct three million new homes over the next four years as a significant step to alleviate the ongoing affordable housing crisis. Additionally, they commended the idea of enhancing the child tax credit, labeling it a “highly effective anti-poverty policy,” and noted her plans to extend tax breaks for low-income workers without children.

However, in supporting some elements of her agenda, the board raised concerns about the financial implications of her plan. They pointed out that Harris claimed her administration, like President Biden’s, would not impose tax increases on households earning less than $400,000 annually. Nonetheless, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that her comprehensive plan could potentially increase the national deficit by $1.7 trillion over the next decade.

While the editorial acknowledged that campaign proposals are often ambitious and costly, it maintained a critical stance toward Harris’s initiative. They concluded their analysis by asserting, “Even adjusted for the pandering standards of campaign economics, however, Ms. Harris’s speech Friday ranks as a disappointment.”

This reaction highlights a growing expectation from voters for clarity and realism in political promises, particularly as economic concerns continue to loom large in the public consciousness ahead of the upcoming election.

Source: The Washington Post