Janice R. Andrews
Vice President Kamala Harris is coming under fire for her evasive response to a query on how she intends to pay for the expansive economic agenda she unveiled on Friday at a speech in North Carolina. Following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the contest, Harris emerged as the Democratic nominee for president. She unveiled a slew of progressive economic proposals meant to assist middle-class and lower-class households, but she provided no information about how they would be funded in the near future.
Her plans include, among other things, relief from medical debt, increased Child Tax Credits, $6,000 payouts for newborns, and $25,000 down payments for first-time homebuyers. Millions of families might benefit from these reforms, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and other critics have expressed worries about the financial effect. The committee issued a warning, stating that Harris’s proposals would result in an astounding $1.7 trillion rise in the budget deficit.
When asked how she intended to pay for such broad measures, Harris avoided giving a direct response. Rather, she focused on how her economic strategies would eventually “pay for themselves” because of the “return on investment” they would generate. Harris attempted to clarify her viewpoint during a Sunday press conference in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, but she did not provide any details.
A Digressive Answer to a Vital Question
Many people thought Harris’ answer to the financing query was complicated. She didn’t specifically answer how the initiatives will be paid throughout her roughly minute-long speech. Rather, she emphasized the possible long-term advantages, contending that eventually, more tax income from healthier and more educated residents will pay the programs’ expenses.
“The return on investment in terms of what that will do and what it will pay for will be tremendous,” Harris stated. To bolster her claim, she pointed to the government’s early achievements, including the more than 50% decrease in child poverty in the first year of the Biden-Harris administration.
Harris made an effort to present her economic ideas as long-term investments, but she did not go into great detail about how these investments would affect the national deficit right away or how she intended to balance the books in the near future. The vice president went on to discuss how raising homeownership and expanding Child Tax Credits would result in more tax revenue, although it was unclear exactly how these policies would be paid for up front.
Harris reaffirmed her view in the long-term benefits of her programs by saying, “When we increase homeownership in America, what that means in terms of increasing the property tax base, what that does to fund schools, again, return on investment.”
Avoiding Financial Realities in the Short Term
Political observers as well as economists expressed disapproval at Harris’s unwillingness to confront the short-term financial realities. Some contend that ignoring conversations about present expenditure problems in favor of concentrating on a future “return on investment” may signal a lack of readiness for the possible economic consequences of these policies.
Critics have pointed out that raising taxes on companies and high earners—the main way the Harris campaign has suggested to balance the costs of these policies—might not be sufficient to fund the wide range of initiatives she has suggested. Additionally, although precise changes or substitutes have not yet been disclosed, Harris’ team has indicated that her economic plan will exceed the 2025 budget that the Biden-Harris government established.
Harris argued that concentrating only on short-term costs without taking long-term effects into account could result in missed opportunities for economic growth. “I think it’s a mistake for any person who talks about public policy to not critically evaluate how you measure the return on investment,” Harris said.
Economists’ Reactions and Concerns
Views among economists about Harris’s plans’ viability are still mixed. Her approach has been hailed by some who contend that sustained investment in housing, healthcare, and education would boost the American economy in the coming decades. Some, including economist Jason Furman of the Obama administration, have expressed reservations about some aspects of her proposal, though.
Harris’s plan to establish a federal prohibition on price-gouging has drawn particular criticism from Furman and others, who cautioned that such a legislation might eventually result in shortages and higher costs. Furman warned the Washington Post of the possible drawbacks of such interventionist approaches, citing “bigger shortages, less supply, and ultimately risk higher prices and worse outcomes for consumers” as possible outcomes.
Insisting on Broad Modifications
During her address in North Carolina, Harris reaffirmed her economic agenda in spite of the criticism. During her first term, she wants to develop three million new housing units, encourage businesses to construct starter houses, and raise the existing ceiling on prescription medication expenses from seniors to all Americans. She also demanded increased openness in the pharmaceutical business and expedited Medicare prescription medication pricing discussions.
Harris went on to say that she will fight to keep big businesses from controlling the rental market by acquiring buildings and raising rents. Prescription medication costs and housing affordability are major concerns for many Americans, and these initiatives aim to solve them.
Harris hasn’t yet offered a thorough justification for how all of these massive projects will be paid for without making the national debt worse.
Time Restricted for the Press
on three minutes was all that Harris had with the media, so there wasn’t much time for more questions on how her administration would address the possible budget deficit. After speaking, Clinton and her running partner, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, went inside a nearby restaurant to speak with people. The Harris campaign has drawn criticism for restricting press access and giving reporters little chances to inquire about her goals and aspirations for the nation.
Although Harris has asserted with confidence that her plans would “pay for themselves” in the long run by providing long-term benefits, there are still unresolved uncertainties due to the lack of immediate financing certainty. Voters will probably want additional details on Harris’s plans to handle the major financial obstacles her economic program presents as the campaign goes on.
