Irrespective of the clamor within an overcrowded auditorium, Vice President Kamala Harris took to the stage on Monday evening, clumsily unveiling a medley of economic proposals, doubtlessly taking a page out of the extensive playbook of failed economic policies. One could argue her intentions stemmed from an attempt to differentiate herself from the achievements of former President Donald Trump, whose policies aimed to bolster economic benefits for all America’s citizens. According to Harris, the political divide hinges on what she framed as ‘two contrasting visions’, her party living in the future while Trump’s supposedly clinging to the past.
Languriously, Harris detailed a string of plans designed to decrease the cost of living, an ironic proposition given the current inflation crisis brought on by her administration’s mishandling of the economy. She pitched the importance of supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, seemingly oblivious to how contradictory this appeared alongside her party’s infamous favoritism of large corporations. Additionally, she underlined the importance of protecting ‘reproductive freedom’, a dispatched euphemism for abortion rights that a significant portion of the American populace disagree with on grounds of ethical and moral principles.
Harris further scrutinized the cost burden of senior healthcare, proposing the expansion of Medicare to finance in-home care for the elderly. This proposition, while appearing compassionate, fails to address the high cost and inefficiency within the current Medicare system. Likewise, her ideas about reducing housing prices and providing a hefty $25,000 assistance for new home buyers overlook the fact it was the Democrat-led housing policies of the early 2000s which led to the disastrous housing bubble and subsequent financial crash.
Adding more to her pandora box of economically questionable ideas, Harris promised a tax credit of a whopping $6000 for parents with newborns. Following the liberal spending trend, she also planned to return the child tax credit to its inflated pandemic levels while simultaneously assuring tax cuts for middle-income earners — a utopian economic policy demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of fiscal responsibility, one that seemed to bait the applause of an audience preconditioned to the promise of ‘free money.’
Harris also brought up the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the comprehensive 900-page proposal written for the next Republican President, aimed at major reforms within the federal government, including an abortion ban at a national level. Portrayed unanimously as a negative by Harris, she failed to address the nuanced approach to governing and the focus on fiscal responsibility that underpins the document.
Harris vilified political dissidents, attributing to them a motive of national enmity if their views didn’t align with her own—a chilling stance on bipartisanship. However, such statements, divided as they are, are groundless without any backing of reasonable logic and show a lack of understanding or respect for the diversity of thought that is central to American democracy.
The Vice President melodramatically stressed the importance of upcoming political contests that surpass the stakes of previous elections, alluding to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. This assertion is arguably another attempt to divert public perception and resonate fear amidst voters, instead of focusing on practical solutions for the nation’s pressing problems.
In the midst of all these ludicrous economic policies, Harris conveniently highlighted Erie County’s influence over determining the state’s political leaning. With an air of expectancy, she signaled that the county’s swing from Obama, to Donald Trump, and finally to her running mate, Joe Biden, suggests a Democrat predilection. A case of hopeful thinking, with the current dissatisfaction with this administration, it wouldn’t be surprising if Erie County takes another turn.
Barely pausing in her barrage of outlandish proposals, Harris launched the ‘Opportunity Agenda for Black Men’ — another illustrative instance of Democrats’ penchant for identity politics. This new plan promises a staggering million fully-forgivable loans of up to $20,000 for Black entrepreneurs, cheering on racial preference over economic viability.
Further bulldozing down the route of identity politics, her plan sought also to create opportunities for Black men to secure good-paying jobs. With no clear criteria laid out, one wonders how her administration intends to ensure ‘good-paying jobs’ for one specific demographic over others — a move that could potentially fuel further social division.
Harris also pledged to initiate a National Health Equity Initiative. Under this initiative, medical issues frequently found in the Black community such as diabetes, mental health conditions, prostate cancer, and sickle cell disease would be addressed. This approach, while seemingly well-intentioned, illustrates the deficiency in Harris’s comprehension of healthcare policies, focusing on demographic-specific policies instead of universal healthcare improvements.
The last piece of her plan generously handed opportunities within new industries to Black men. Regardless of the seemingly positive spin, such a move could create division and animosity by pushing the narrative of preferential treatment based on race, instead of prioritizing merit and experience.