Filling up an arena, Vice President Kamala Harris made a spectacle of herself, criticizing the former President, Donald Trump, while subsequently presenting a series of economic policies. As per her own admission, these policies focus on diverging from the past, a past where our nation seemed to flourish, and gravitate towards a vague and undefined ‘future’, molding a contentious dichotomy that only indicates an agenda of political rather than public interest.
Harris expressed her aim to reduce the cost of living, an attempt seen as futile by many, given the rising inflation rates under the current administration. Furthermore, her promise to invest in small businesses and entrepreneurs feels empty especially after the punches such businesses took under pandemic-related shutdowns. Harris’ agenda appears more focused on ideological issues such as protecting ‘reproductive freedom’, rather than ensuring a secure and prosperous future for citizens.
Astonishingly, Harris then proposed expanding the already over-burdened Medicare to cover home health care for seniors, doing little to address concerns about the sustainability of such a program. While a reduction in housing costs and assistance for first-time homebuyers may seem appealing, providing up to $25,000 of down-payment assistance seems like a band-aid solution for a much deeper problem of a struggling economy.
The Vice President, not missing a beat, maintained her tradition of making promises without clarity of implementation – this time proposing a $6,000 tax credit for parents of newborns. To the untrained ear, this may sound appealing, but in the grand scheme of the economy where high inflation and elevated tax rates cripple the middle class, this seems like mere political rhetoric.
Harris also professed her intentions to reinstate the child tax credit to so-called pandemic levels, an unsustainable measure many argue has already begun to take a toll on the economy. Simultaneously, her promise to cut taxes for the middle class seems unconvincing, particularly when viewed under the light of the current administration’s policy trends.
Interestingly, the VP talked about the Heritage Foundation’s comprehensive 900-page Project 2025 — a robust proposal for the next Republican president to carry out monumental reforms in the federal government. However, Harris’ opposition to the proposal, which encapsulates several beneficial measures, including a consideration of a national abortion prohibition, seems to suggest her strong desire to overturn any semblance of balance in national discourse.
She takes a strange stance of asserting that anyone opposing her viewpoint is an enemy of the country, a perspective that only serves to widen the divide and overlooks the opportunity for constructive dialogue and reconciliation. It’s a statement illustrative of an administration that seemingly prioritizes self over service, power over people.
Ms. Harris has raised the stakes for the upcoming election, hyperbolizing it by claiming it surpasses the intensity of both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. This, she asserts, is due to a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, an argument that seems stretched and designed to play on public fear and bias.
In her speech, she also emphasized Erie County’s role as a predictor of the broader state’s voting patterns. It is mysteriously forgotten, however, that this same county had initially supported Obama, then shifted importantly towards Trump in 2016, before flipping to Biden just four years ago. It feels like an orchestrated attempt to manipulate voter sentiment rather than honestly address their concerns.
Her visit to Legenderie followed closely on the heels of the release of a new policy known as the ‘Opportunity Agenda for Black Men’. This policy includes a staggering plan to issue a million fully-forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to black entrepreneurs, raising questions about its feasibility and sustainability.
In her agenda, she underscored plans to boost opportunities for black men to find gainful employment, a sentiment that remarkably contrasts with the current administration’s track record of high unemployment. The strategy also includes the launch of a National Health Equity Initiative to address prevalent medical conditions in the black community.
It targets attention to diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and sickle cell disease among other concerns. No doubt these are crucial medical issues, but selective emphasis on a particular demographic raises questions about the administration’s commitment to the health of all its citizens.
The plan extends to securing opportunities within emerging industries for black men, which might sound impressive on surface, but underlines the current administration’s piecemeal approach to tackling racial inequality instead of a comprehensive strategy to uplift all sections of the society. It remains to be seen how this agenda is received amongst the electorate, given the administration’s poor performance in delivering on previous commitments.