A Professor’s Critique of Kamala Harris’
Economic Vision

I. Introduction

Brief background on Kamala Harris as a political figure and her presidential campaign

Kamala Harris, the current Vice President of the United States, previously served as a Senator from California and as the Attorney General of California. In January 2019, she announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. During her campaign, Harris emphasized her experience as a prosecutor and her commitment to justice and equality. She advocated for policies such as universal healthcare, affordable housing, free college education, and criminal justice reform.

Overview of the economic vision that Harris has presented during her campaign

On the economic front, Harris proposed a number of initiatives aimed at addressing income inequality and creating jobs. She advocated for increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, expanding Social Security benefits, investing in infrastructure projects, and passing a Green New Deal. Harris also called for free college education, student loan debt forgiveness, and expanding paid family leave. Her campaign slogan was “for the people,” and she positioned herself as a champion of the working class and marginalized communities.

Purpose and significance of critiquing Harris’ economic vision

However, it is important to critically evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of Harris’ economic proposals. While her plans may resonate with some voters, it is crucial to examine their costs, implementation challenges, and potential unintended consequences. For instance, her call for free college education and student loan debt forgiveness could be expensive, and the funding sources for these initiatives are not always clear. Similarly, expanding Social Security benefits may require significant revenue increases or cuts to other programs. Moreover, some critics argue that Harris’ job creation initiatives may not be enough to address the structural issues driving unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. labor market.

Analysis of Harris’ economic policies

To critically assess Harris’ economic vision, one can examine the details and costs of her proposed initiatives. For example, her plan to expand Social Security benefits would cost an estimated $2.6 trillion over a decade, according to the Urban Institute. To fund this expansion, Harris proposed a 14.8% payroll tax on income above $250,000 and a 6.2 percentage point increase in the current payroll tax rate for employers and employees. Critics argue that these taxes may not be politically feasible, as they would disproportionately affect high-income individuals and small businesses.

E. Comparison with other Democratic candidates’ economic visions

It is also instructive to compare Harris’ economic vision with those of her Democratic primary opponents. For instance, Bernie Sanders advocated for a more comprehensive social safety net, including Medicare-for-All and tuition-free college education, financed through progressive taxation. Elizabeth Warren proposed an “ultra-millionaire tax” on the wealthiest Americans to fund her plans for universal childcare, student loan debt forgiveness, and affordable housing. By evaluating these proposals side by side, one can gain a better understanding of the trade-offs and potential impact of each candidate’s economic vision.

Analysis of Kamala Harris’ Economic Vision:

Overview of Harris’ past policies during her tenure as Attorney General of California and Senator from California

As a California Attorney General and later as a Senator, Kamala Harris championed several economic policies aimed at improving the lives of her constituents.

Minimum wage increase:

Harris supported raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, which eventually became a reality in California in 2016. This policy was aimed at lifting the wages of low-income workers and reducing income inequality.

Affordable housing initiatives:

Harris also focused on affordable housing, introducing bills to build more affordable housing units and prevent rent-gauging. California faces a severe housing affordability crisis, and Harris’ efforts were aimed at mitigating this issue.

Tuition-free public colleges and universities:

Harris was a strong advocate for making higher education more accessible and affordable. She proposed legislation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families earning less than $125,000 per year.

Single-payer healthcare system:

Harris backed the concept of a single-payer healthcare system for California, which would have provided comprehensive healthcare coverage to all residents regardless of their ability to pay. This proposal was part of a larger effort to expand healthcare access and affordability.

Examination of Harris’ proposed economic plans during her presidential campaign

During her presidential campaign, Kamala Harris introduced several economic plans that built upon her past policies and addressed new challenges.

LIFT the Middle Class Act:

This $3 trillion plan, known as “LIFT,” aimed to address housing, education, family care, and climate change. It included proposals to expand access to affordable housing, make college tuition-free, increase social security benefits, and invest in clean energy infrastructure.

The 30×30 Plan:

Harris proposed protecting at least 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030 through a combination of public and private conservation efforts. This plan aimed to combat climate change, protect biodiversity, and promote sustainable economic growth.

The “Green New Deal” inspired climate plan:

Harris’ climate plan was influenced by the Green New Deal, which called for a massive investment in clean energy infrastructure and job creation. Her plan included proposals to achieve 100% clean energy by 2030, create millions of jobs in the renewable energy sector, and invest in research and development for new technologies.

I Critique of Kamala Harris’ Economic Vision: Fiscal Responsibility and Sustainability

Assessment of the Fiscal Implications of Harris’ Proposed Plans

Senator Kamala Harris‘s economic vision, as outlined during her presidential campaign, includes a number of policy initiatives aimed at addressing income inequality, climate change, and healthcare access. While these proposals are well-intentioned, it is crucial to assess their fiscal implications.

The Costs Associated with Each Policy Initiative

Starting with The LIFT the Middle Class Act, Harris’ plan to expand the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and provide a new tax credit for caregiving expenses would cost an estimated $3 trillion over ten years. Similarly, her plan to address climate change through investments in renewable energy and infrastructure, as well as creating a Civilian Climate Corps, would require an additional $10 trillion over ten years. Lastly, her Medicare-for-all proposal could cost as much as $32 trillion over a decade according to some estimates.

Potential Sources of Revenue to Fund These Proposals

To fund these proposals, Harris has suggested various sources of revenue, including eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, implementing a wealth tax, increasing the corporate tax rate to 30%, and raising the capital gains tax rate. However, it remains unclear how much revenue these measures would actually generate, leaving a significant gap between projected costs and potential revenues.

Evaluation of the Sustainability of Harris’ Economic Vision

Despite the ambitious nature of Harris’ economic proposals, it is essential to consider their long-term sustainability.

Long-term Implications for the Economy and Government Debt

Implementing such a large scale of spending, particularly in the absence of substantial revenue increases, would significantly add to the federal debt. This could negatively impact future generations and potentially lead to a debt crisis if not managed carefully. Furthermore, the high level of deficit spending required to fund these initiatives may dampen economic growth through increased interest rates and borrowing costs.

Potential for Unintended Consequences or Negative Effects on Specific Industries or Demographic Groups

Additionally, Harris’ plans could have unintended consequences. For example, a significant increase in corporate tax rates may lead to companies relocating overseas or cutting jobs to maintain profitability. Similarly, a wealth tax could disproportionately impact middle-class Americans who own modest homes with considerable equity.

In conclusion, while Senator Kamala Harris’ economic vision aims to address pressing issues such as income inequality and climate change, it is essential to critically evaluate the fiscal implications of her proposed plans. The potential costs, combined with uncertainty regarding revenue sources, could create significant challenges in terms of sustainability and long-term economic impact.

Critique of Kamala Harris’ Economic Vision: Market-oriented Solutions and Competition

Examination of market-oriented solutions to address economic issues, particularly in the context of Harris’ proposals

Market-oriented solutions have long been a key component of economic policy, both in the United States and abroad. These approaches hinge on the belief that free markets and competition can effectively address many economic challenges. In the case of Kamala Harris’ economic vision, market-oriented solutions play a significant role in her proposals to tackle housing affordability, education, and other issues.

The role of free markets and competition in addressing economic challenges

Free markets allow for the forces of supply and demand to determine prices and production, leading to efficiency and innovation. Competition, meanwhile, encourages businesses to offer better products and services at lower costs in order to attract consumers. In the context of economic issues like housing affordability and education, market-oriented solutions can help increase supply and foster innovation. For instance, in the housing sector, allowing for increased density through zoning reforms and deregulation can lead to more affordable units, as developers are able to build more homes in response to demand. In the education sector, the proliferation of charter schools and educational technology has given families more options and driven innovation, leading to improvements in student outcomes.

Critique of Harris’ plans for their potential impact on competition and entrepreneurship

However, the implementation of market-oriented solutions is not without its challenges. Critics argue that government intervention in the name of addressing economic issues can potentially stifle competition and entrepreneurship. With regards to Harris’ plans, some have expressed concerns that her proposals may discourage free market forces and limit the potential for innovative solutions to emerge from the private sector.

The potential for government intervention to stifle competition and innovation

When governments intervene in the economy, they can inadvertently create unintended consequences. For instance, price controls and subsidies can lead to shortages or inefficiencies, as market forces are disrupted. Furthermore, overly burdensome regulations can create barriers to entry for new businesses, making it difficult for entrepreneurs to enter and compete in a market. Harris’ proposals, which include significant government intervention in areas like housing and education, have raised concerns among some that they may stifle competition and entrepreneurship.

Alternative, market-oriented approaches that could potentially address the same issues more effectively

Rather than relying solely on government intervention, alternative, market-oriented approaches can be explored to address economic challenges. For example, in the housing sector, deregulation and zoning reforms that encourage supply and competition have been shown to lead to more affordable units. Similarly, in education, voucher programs and educational savings accounts can give families the resources to choose the best educational option for their child, fostering competition and innovation among schools. By focusing on market-oriented solutions that allow for free markets and competition to thrive, policymakers can potentially address the same economic challenges more effectively while avoiding unintended consequences.

Critique of Kamala Harris’ Economic Vision: International Trade and Globalization

Analysis of Harris’ Stance on International Trade and Globalization

Senator Kamala Harris‘s stance on international trade and globalization has been a topic of interest during her political career. Her past statements and votes related to trade policies provide insights into her position on this critical economic issue.

Past Statements and Votes

Throughout her career, Harris has expressed concerns about the negative effects of free trade on American workers. In 2015, she voted against granting President Obama “fast track” authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a controversial trade deal. During her 2020 presidential campaign, she pledged to renegotiate or withdraw from existing trade agreements that she believed were detrimental to American workers.

Proposed Plans

Harris’ proposed plans for addressing global economic challenges include increasing investment in domestic manufacturing, expanding access to affordable education and healthcare, and promoting fair trade practices. She advocates for a more aggressive stance toward countries that engage in unfair trade practices, such as China.

Critique of Harris’ Position on International Trade and Its Potential Impact on the U.S. Economy

The Role of Free Trade in Economic Growth and Job Creation

Critics argue that Harris’ stance on international trade could harm the U.S. economy in several ways. While it is true that some American workers have been negatively affected by globalization and free trade, many economists argue that the overall benefits of free trade far outweigh the costs. Free trade allows American businesses to access new markets and reduces production costs, leading to increased economic growth and job creation.

Potential Negative Consequences of Protectionist Policies

The potential negative consequences of protectionist policies, which Harris’ stance on trade might imply, are significant. American consumers could face higher prices for imported goods, limiting their purchasing power. Protectionist measures could also damage international relationships and lead to retaliatory tariffs from trading partners. American businesses might face higher costs due to tariffs on exports, which could result in reduced competitiveness and job losses.

VI. Conclusion

In this critique, we have examined Harris’ economic vision as outlined in her campaign platform and identified several key issues. Firstly, her proposed tax increases on high earners and corporations could deter investment and entrepreneurship, potentially stifling economic growth. Secondly, her emphasis on government intervention in industries such as healthcare and education may lead to inefficiencies and higher costs for consumers. Thirdly, her plans for free college tuition and student loan forgiveness could create unsustainable financial burdens for taxpayers.

Implications

The implications of these issues are significant for Harris’ economic vision and her presidential campaign. While her proposals may appeal to some voters, particularly those struggling with student debt or seeking affordable healthcare, they could also deter business owners and investors who value a pro-market economy. Moreover, her plans may not effectively address the root causes of economic challenges faced by Americans today, such as income inequality and lack of access to affordable education and healthcare.

Recommendations

Instead, I would recommend alternative, market-oriented solutions that could effectively address economic challenges faced by Americans today. For instance, instead of increasing taxes on high earners and corporations, policymakers could focus on reducing bureaucratic red tape and streamlining regulations to encourage business growth. In the area of healthcare, rather than expanding government intervention, policymakers could explore ways to increase competition and consumer choice through market reforms such as health savings accounts and interstate insurance competition. In education, instead of free college tuition or student loan forgiveness, policymakers could focus on expanding access to vocational training and apprenticeships to help people acquire skills that are in demand in the labor market.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Harris’ economic vision may appeal to some voters, it contains several issues that could deter investment and entrepreneurship and create unsustainable financial burdens for taxpayers. By contrast, market-oriented solutions that focus on reducing government intervention, increasing competition, and empowering consumers can effectively address economic challenges faced by Americans today while also promoting sustainable growth.

video