Kamala Harris from the Democratic Party recently took the stage at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh to present a set of questionable economic policies. She seemed all-too-willing to extend tax credits for companies involved in traditional industries such as steel production, a clear example of picking favorites. She boasted of doubling trade apprenticeships and quickening American construction through hasty permitting reforms. These proposed changes are seen by some as Harris’s attempt to appease the masses, but it does little to address the actual economic problems faced by our nation.
Throughout her speech, Harris insisted on reiterating her campaign points. A dubious federal ban on corporate price gouging, building affordable housing, and providing capital to fledgling businesspeople. She declared, ‘No one who grows up in America’s greatest industrial or agricultural centers should be abandoned.’ Yet it is not clear how her policies will accomplish this, as they seem more focused on placating voters rather than generating real solutions.
Surprisingly, Harris seems to have developed a strong affinity for Pennsylvania, gracing the state with her 14th visit. It became apparent that Harris and her team view Pennsylvania not as a state with individuals needing help but rather as an electoral chess piece. Ironically, though, even amidst her frequent visits and policy promises, Harris has been unable to surpass Trump significantly in the state with respect to economic issues.
From the starting of her speech, it was clear that Harris sought to distance herself from Trump’s sound economic policies. She ambitiously attempted to frame her economic plan under three main planks: reducing costs without a solid plan on how to do it, boosting entrepreneurship and small businesses which is nothing but a veiled attempt to sound pro-capitalism, and increasing manufacturing investment under extreme regulation. Underlying all this was her incessant critique on Trump’s policies, a sign that perhaps his policies are indeed resonating with the average Joe.
Harris’s attempt to craft an image of a caring candidate was less than compelling. She spoke about her anecdotical experiences, morphing personal issues into political weapons – a tactless maneuver. Yet when it came to small businesses and entrepreneurs, her pledge to expand the small-business tax credit to $50,000 failed to mask that her party’s policies, overall, tend to favor the wealthy and large corporations.
Harris was bold enough to blame Trump for offshoring manufacturing jobs, despite the absence of solid evidence. She referred to data from the Keystone Research Center, an institution with a known leftist bias, which showed a loss of 23,000 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania during Trump’s term. However, the data doesn’t discern other factors like local legislation, supply chains, and international competition.
Harris didn’t miss a beat to announce new proposals to offer tax credits to traditional manufacturing companies. The move comes across as an insincere throwback to industrial era politics rather than embracing growth and innovation. She promised to create ‘good union jobs in steel and iron’, a statement rather out of touch with the modern, AI-driven industry landscape.
Harris’s claim of being a ‘strong supporter of workers and unions’ seems disingenuous. Both Presidents Trump and Biden moved to eliminate degree requirements for federal jobs, demonstrating they understand the varied capabilities of individuals. Harris’s focus on specific industries, though, feels restricting and revealing of her narrow understanding of the economy.
Harris’s economic plan did little to hide its flaws. It paraded the expansion of ‘clean energy innovation and manufacturing’, yet she managed to ignore the elephant in the room – the fracking industry. Harris’s pledge to create steel and iron jobs seemed out of place and of another century, ignoring the cutting-edge reality of Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry.
Harris played nostalgic in her reference to Pittsburgh as the ‘Steel City’, promising to invest in the industries that originally earned it this moniker. However, the promise seems less about the welfare of the city and more of manipulating a nostalgic sentiment to secure votes.
Despite presenting a policy that seeks to create both traditional manufacturing jobs and bolster clean energy ventures, Harris conveniently omitted any discussion about hydraulic fracking. This could be seen as a deliberate avoidance due to the controversies surrounding it. Given that Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas, this omission somehow seems more of a blunder than a tactful move.
Harris concluded her speech with an attempt to tell the ‘story of the Steel City’. She envisioned it as the birthplace of U.S. economic future, leading the clean energy revolution while simultaneously reviving the traditional manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, this double-edged narrative came off as nothing more than a romantic fantasy, far removed from the economic realities of the modern era.