From ‘Bidenomics’ to ‘Harrisnomics’: Adding a touch of populism

THE Washington Post is a liberal, Democratic-leaning newspaper whose editorial page has long criticised former president Donald Trump, and has warmly welcomed Vice-President Kamala Harris into the race for the White House.

So it came as a surprise when the Post’s editorial board slammed the Democratic presidential candidate over her newly announced economic agenda, which it characterised as “populist gimmicks”.

Harris had an “opportunity to get specific with voters about how a Harris presidency would manage an economy that many feel is not working well for them”, the board wrote last Friday (Aug 16). “Unfortunately, instead of delivering a substantial plan, she squandered the moment on populist gimmicks.”

“Even adjusted for the pandering standards of campaign economics, however, Ms Harris’ speech Friday ranks as a disappointment,” the editorial concluded.

Harris formally announced her economic plan last week at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The agenda took aim at the economy, which has been identified as the key policy issue of the 2024 presidential election, and her campaign has said that her economic proposals will be the priorities for the first 100 days in a Harris White House.

Her proposals range from cutting taxes to boosting housing construction. On one level, they fit very much into the overall set of economic policies pursued by the administration of Joe Biden – also known as “Bidenomics”.

But on another level, they do mark, as the Post and other critics suggested, a departure from the policies of the Biden-Harris administration by highlighting pro-consumer ideas with an anti-corporate abuse agenda.

Call it Bidenomics with a populist touch, especially when it comes to addressing voter concerns after a surge in prices since 2021. Indeed, opinion polls show that inflation continues to be a top-of-mind issue for voters in the months leading up to the Nov 5 presidential election.

The campaign’s proposals include a “first-ever” tax credit for builders of homes sold to first-time buyers, as well as up to US$25,000 in downpayment assistance for eligible first-time buyers, a move that is estimated could reach four million households over four years.

Harris also plans to build three million new homes over the next four years to address the country’s affordable housing crisis.

The vice-president has also called for capping the monthly price of diabetes drug insulin at US$35 for everyone, finding ways to cancel medical debt, and giving families a US$6,000 tax credit the year they have a new child, which could amount to highly effective anti-poverty policy.

She has urged action on a Bill in Congress that would bar property owners from using services that “coordinate” rents.

But it is her support for a federal law banning firms from charging excessive prices on groceries – or “price gouging” – that has drawn the most criticism.

The plan calls for what it described as the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries”, though it doesn’t offer much detail as to how the proposal would be carried out.

The plan proposed setting rules to ensure corporations “can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries”. It additionally calls for “new authority” for the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys-general “to investigate and impose strict new penalties on companies that break the rules”.

Economists say the term “price gouging” is difficult to define; calculating what amounts to excessive profits meant for an industry with relatively low margins like the grocery industry is certainly questionable.

‘Blaming big business’

Moreover, rules aimed at banning price gouging could end up backfiring, by discouraging firms from making more in times of short supply. And in general, imposing controls on competitive markets could lead to shortages.

And then there is the issue of scapegoating America’s corporations for the high prices and not acknowledging that that inflation spiked in 2021 mainly because the Covid pandemic scrambled supply chains.

Instead, the vice-president, as the Post put it, “opted for a less forthright route: Blaming big business”.

Some critics have also raised concerns about the costs of the plan. Under some estimates, the full plan is projected to add US$1.7 trillion to the federal deficit over a decade.

Republican nominee Trump was quick to respond to the plan, saying that the vice-president has already had more than three years with the administration to deliver her promises, which his campaign called “dangerously liberal”. “Where has she been and why hasn’t she done it?” he asked.

Harris has hit back, stating: “I think that if you want to know who someone cares about, look at who they fight for. Donald Trump fights for billionaires and large corporations. I will fight to give money back to working- and middle-class Americans.”