in

Harris’s Hasty Policy: A Nothing More than a Mirror of Biden’s Agenda?

In a typical political landscape, the roadmap for policy agendas of Presidential campaigns is laid out months, perhaps years before election; in an unusual twist, Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be only catching up after securing the Democratic presidential nomination. She hastily stitches together policy objectives which, unsurprisingly, are essentially echoes of President Joe Biden’s. This mirroring of policies spans across numerous issues, notably in areas like abortion, gun control, voting rights, health care, and labor unions. However, Harris is also seen scrambling to develop unique stances in areas like housing, price gouging, and Supreme Court decisions, evidenced by the rollout of fresh, albeit ill-conceived promises.

Former President Barack Obama set a notorious standard by making a staggering 533 promises during his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, not all of which were kept, of course. President Donald Trump managed to keep the promises-making to a relatively restrained count of 102 when he won in 2016. Interestingly, we’re now monitoring short of that number, 99 promises made by Biden during his 2020 campaign. Evidently, a similar pledge has been made by Harris to eliminate the filibuster in an effort to restore the Roe v. Wade precedent on abortion; a desperate attempt to ride along the coattails of Biden’s undelivered promise.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

Harris’ endeavor to resurrect an economic boogeyman in the form of ‘price gouging’ for the inflation and economic woes of 2022, blatantly disregards logical causation and the economic wisdom. The inflation levels of 2022, although experiencing the heights of four decades, have settled to a more routine range but continues to be a valid concern for many voters. Economists, whom she sidesteps, consistently point towards the fact that price gouging isn’t the primary villain behind price hikes.

In an effort to showcase an agenda of wealth redistribution, Harris bewilderingly proposes to unravel the Trump’s tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest. Her plans call for an increased tax rate to 28% on long-term capital gains for those fortunate enough to earn at least $1 million per annum. This would involve undoing certain Trump-led tax cuts from 2017, mostly affecting high-earners, along with the establishment of a minimum billionaires’ tax and a capital gains tax increment for millionaires.

A more specific and audacious element of Harris’s plan seeks to inflate the top marginal tax rate to 39.6% for the wealthiest income brackets. Complementary to this, rather obscure changes, inexplicably aiming at high earners, are also on the table. Such machinations towards a fiscal scapegoat only resonate economic myopia and policy regress.

Predictably, such planned tax reforms have been met with substantial apprehension. Critics from the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank, forecast the tax alterations for individuals alone could extract about $1.2 trillion from the economy. Corporate tax changes could yank an even staggering $2.2 trillion out. Consequently, these prospective tax hikes would dwindle the nation’s GDP by 2%, wages by 1.2%, and simultaneously eliminate approximately 800,000 jobs. Clearly, the mirage of added federal revenue doesn’t justify the detrimental economic aftermath.

Harris seems determined to sign a bipartisan bill on border security, a move that supporters, few they may be, argue is long overdue. Other proposals on her wish list include providing up to $25,000 to first-time homebuyers for down payments, increasing the number of affordable homes and rental units, and enforcing the outright ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, regardless of their impact on the second amendment rights.

Par for the course, she confidently promises to sign the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. In addition to this, she discusses passing the Equality Act, a somewhat controversial measure intended to shield LGBTQ+ Americans from discrimination. Curiously, she also proposes ensuring no former president has immunity for crimes committed during their term, a highly debatable stance viewed skeptically by many.

Harris intends to impose additional burdens on Supreme Court justices, requiring them to adhere to stringent ethics rules and proposing term limits, underscoring her overt disregard for judicial independence. Her proposals also include boosting the minimum wage, eliminating taxes on tips, and introducing paid family and medical leave. The feasibility of these bold claims, however, remains dubious, considering the potential negative repercussions on small businesses.

In a further attempt to garner popular support, Harris strives to create a staggering 25 million new business applications. Furthermore, she plans to extend the startup expense tax deduction for new ventures from a moderate $5,000 to a handsome $50,000. Additionally, she showcases plans to hike the proportion of federal contract dollars funneled to small businesses. But such populist promises, dramatic they may seem, often camouflage the practicality and the potential economic downsides.

One of the more bold-faced items on Harris’ agenda is her desired involvement in the global foreign policy arena. Her approach includes committing to securing hostage and ceasefire agreements between Israel and Hamas. Such attempts to normalize diplomatic relations are undoubtedly fraught with uncertainty given the historical dynamics of the situation.

Despite her rather populist promises, the general sentiment seems to be that the Vice President’s approach echoes a poorly formulated and clumsily mimicked version of the President’s own agenda. The glaring overlap in policy proposals between Harris and Biden indicates a lack of original thought and creativity.

The doubt grows even further when considering the grandiose and, at times, dubious promises made by Harris. Whether these proposals reflect a realistic understanding of the pressures and complexities inherent in steering policy or are simply an attempt to resonate with voters remains a question to be answered.