Anyone who believes Ronald Reagan is still relevant 40 years after his most recent victory in the election has n’t read Kamala Harris ‘ economic recommendations. Reagan’s traditional quote demonstrates how well he knew the communist thinking:  ,
Government’s perspective of the business could be summed up in a few small phrases: If it moves, income it. If it keeps moving, manage it. And if it stops moving, pay it.
This describes the Harris strategy in a nutshell: more spending, funded by higher fees, coupled with large quantities of rules. Her policy recommendations could also lead to another round of price increases for struggling British families rather than reducing inflation.
Massive Spending ,
The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget ( CRFB) estimated that if all of the proposals were made permanent ( as Democrats will undoubtedly want to do ), they could spend$ 2 trillion in the coming decade and more. Among the ideas:
- $ 1.1 trillion to reinstitute the Biden” stimulus” system of child subsidy payments, a stopping point on the way to a universal basic income ( which Harris has also supported ),
- $ 100 billion to further expand the child subsidy to$ 6, 000 for newborns,
- $ 400 billion to increase the tax breaks and Obamacare superior subsidies, which have promoted scams.
- $ 150 billion to expand the earned income tax credit to staff without children,
- $ 100 billion for a$ 25, 000 first-time homebuyer credit for four years, and
- Another$ 100 billion for “affordable housing plans” for four years.
Harris ‘ campaign informed CRFB that it backed all of the tax rises in Joe Biden’s budget, which was in line with her support of Biden’s plan to increase the corporate income tax rate from the recent 21 percent to 28 percent.
Additionally, she supports Biden’s development of the federal government’s price controls on prescription drugs, which will give Democrats more Medicare” benefits” to use to fund various expenses. However, many of her paying proposals go beyond Biden’s, creating a gap that is even bigger than the one in Biden’s personal budget.
Grants Driving Prices
Beyond the clear gap result of all this spending, the federal government’s “affordable” fund will do nothing. The most ironic quotation in Harris ‘ program discusses “doubling down” on the present administration’s housing development fund. Harris wants to increase down on failed plans, which include the government throwing too much of the wealth of other people’s funds at very few products, which are the ideal recipe for inflation, like so many others.
The housing ideas in certain illustrate the cycle of one poor government action begetting another ( and another, going on and on ). A lowering of payment requirements, which resulted in the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession, was caused by the combination of cheap money from the Federal Reserve and lawmakers ‘ desire to promote “affordable” options. This is the same desire that encourages Harris ‘ programs.
In the decades since, the issues for would-be people have simply gotten worse. In response to the rapid rise in inflation, loan rates have increased, more lowering pricing. Of course, the trillions of dollars in government spending contributed to the inflation that caused the Federal Reserve to ( belatedly ) raise interest rates.
Given this circumstance, one would assume that Harris and her acquaintances would alter their lessons in line with the tale that there is no educational benefit in the second mule blow. Unfortunately, however, they have never learned their lesson, meaning the British people will have to get it in the knees but once.
Marxist Kamala?
The coup de grace was caused by a request to “advange the first-ever federal restrictions on price cutting on food and groceries,” as if the trillions in many new paying proposals were n’t poor enough policy. As The Washington Post’s left-of-center columnist Catherine Rampell criticized the proposal,” If your opponent claims you’re a’ communist,’ maybe do n’t start with an economic agenda that can ( accurately ) be labeled as federal price controls” ( parentheses original ).  ,
After asking Harris ‘ plan for details of the plan and receiving no reply, Rampell discussed similar policy from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and outlined its issues:
It’s difficult to overstate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Prices and profit levels would no longer be based on supply and demand. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The]Federal Trade Commission ] would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.
An obvious analogy can be found in the form of a health policy analyst: a similar approach to controlling thousands of prices within the economy has n’t consistently kept healthcare costs under control. Instead, Medicare’s combination of regulating prices and subsidizing costs has caused skyrocketing spending because doctors and hospitals find ways to evade price controls, typically by offering more procedures or services.
To end where we began, the Great Communicator noted that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are,” I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”. Kamala Harris ‘ economic policies have more than nine words in them, but they should terrify those who work for the people she claims to “help.”
