by David Ditch
Vice President Kamala Harris gave a speech last week to accompany the release of her 82-page economic planning document. While her words were intended to evoke optimism, the implications of the plan are troubling for America’s future.
To begin with, the plan must be placed in context.
The Biden-Harris administration has overseen the federal government since January 2021. President Joe Biden has faced broad public disapproval of his handling of the economy for most of that time, and Americans still view high prices and inflation as leading concerns.
Rather than breaking from the Biden-Harris record, the Harris economic plan wholeheartedly embraces it.
Harris’ plan praises a series of legislative packages passed in 2021 and 2022 that fueled inflationary deficit spending. Some of the bills even required tiebreaking votes by Harris herself in the role of presiding officer in the Senate as vice president.
Reading the economic plan makes it clear that Harris is proud of the Biden-Harris administration’s economic legacy.
In worrisome fashion, the plan would tighten Washington’s grip on the economy even further.
Rather than relying on businesses to create jobs with smart investments, the Harris vision involves the federal government using a combination of spending and tax credits to subsidize preferred industries.
Meanwhile, she proposes to raise taxes on businesses broadly, claiming they aren’t paying their “fair share.” With tax credits in one hand and tax hikes in the other, Harris would pick winners and losers across the entire economy.
The dismal track record of the Biden-Harris administration’s “investments” is plain to see. Billions of dollars in subsidies for electric vehicle charging infrastructure has yielded only a handful of stations, and a massive new broadband internet program has also had pitiful results.
There are good reasons for these failures.
The Biden-Harris administration loads federal programs with requirements for “equity,” “environmental justice,” and other left-wing ideological fads. That ensures that federal spending produces even less economic value than usual.
Another claim—that a Harris administration would “cut red tape”—is downright laughable.
Not only has the Biden-Harris administration made federal programs even more bureaucratic and complicated, but it has also unleashed a torrent of regulations that impose thousands of dollars in costs for every family.
Unless and until Harris is willing to repudiate that regulatory record, any “cut red tape” claims will be hard to take seriously.
Speaking of families, the Harris plan takes the same approach for households as it does for businesses; namely, subsidies and tax credits for some, higher taxes for others.
A prominent example is Harris calling for $25,000 in down payment support to offset the rising cost of housing. Yet this would lead to a massive increase in demand for houses, causing prices to rise even faster.
On the jobs front, the plan calls for both broad and targeted increases to the federal minimum wage. That would destroy jobs by reducing hiring and artificially accelerating automation, while also raising prices for consumers (which is to say, everyone).
In addition, reversing many (or all) of the tax cuts passed in 2017 under then-President Donald Trump would stifle job-creating private investment.
The Harris economic document also embraces the Biden-Harris administration’s many attempts to write off student loan debt. That’s not “forgiveness” as much as it is a transferal, since the burden is shifted from university attendees to taxpayers—who already have $35 trillion in federal debt to shoulder.
In sum, the Harris plan would make Washington the center of U.S. economic life, ensuring fewer jobs, less economic growth, and higher prices.
Rather than a “new way forward for the middle class,” the document is a recipe for economic stagnation and national decline. Harris’ plan would only create an “opportunity economy” for bureaucrats and her political allies.
– – –
David Ditch is a senior policy analyst in budget policy in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at The Heritage Foundation.
