Kamala Harris has finally started to unveil pieces of an economic agenda with just weeks to go until Election Day. But unfortunately for the vice president, she has proven incapable of explaining how any of her proposals would work – or how they would pass basic constitutional scrutiny.
Harris’s most recent policy proposal is a so-called “Opportunity Agenda for Black Men” that, in addition to being shameless pandering, also appears to be blatantly illegal.
The agenda consists of five specific promises. The first is one million taxpayer-funded “fully forgivable” loans of up to $20,000 that will only be available to black men and women. The second is a vague promise for “education training” for only black men. Next is a promise to protect “cryptocurrency investments” for, again, only black men, followed by a “national health initiative” focused on illnesses that “disproportionately affect black men.” The final point in the proposal is a promise to “legalize recreational marijuana.”
The proposals have thus far been lambasted for their brazen illegality and unconstitutionality – along with the fact that they are overtly discriminatory against non-black men. Even if Harris were somehow able to pass these policies into law, they would likely quickly be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The assertion that Harris will protect cryptocurrency investments for only black men and provide taxpayer-funded “forgivable loans” to only black men is perverse and, absent of any specifics, appears nonsensical. If she intends to provide cryptocurrency subsidies for only black men, this would be profoundly unconstitutional. If she means to regulate the industry for the advantage of black men, this would be similarly illegal.
The unintended backlash against this agenda left many feeling that the policy was put together in a haphazard manner with no real thought behind it. Seeming to confirm this accusation, neither Harris nor anyone on her campaign has offered any explanation for how these policies would work.
But failing to defend the practicality of its policy agenda has become commonplace for a Harris campaign that has by and large failed to release any specifics for how they plan to implement their grand ambitions.
Perhaps the most infamous example of this was Harris’s rollout of a proposal to ban “price gouging,” which critics quickly pointed out was just a pitch for socialist price controls. The Harris campaign has largely abandoned the policy as even normally friendly media outlets slammed it as unrealistic, dangerous, and likely illegal.
Harris also floated a $25,000 “credit” for first-time homebuyers, supposedly to make buying a home more affordable. Economists blasted the practicality of the plan, pointing out that it would only further increase the cost of housing. Again, neither Harris nor her campaign had a serious answer or provided any logical explanation for why they believe the housing credit would make housing more affordable.
But perhaps the clearest evidence that Harris doesn’t have a clue about how her economic agenda would actually work came during her appearance on 60 Minutes earlier this month. CBS’s Bill Whitaker noted that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Harris’s plan would add $3 trillion to the budget deficit over a decade, asking Harris how she proposes to pay for it.
“Ok, so the other economists that have reviewed my plan versus my opponent and determined that my economic plan would strengthen America’s economy. His would weaken it,” Harris said.
“But pardon me Madam Vice President,” Whitaker responded. “The question was, how are you going to pay for it?”
Whitaker’s response left Harris in a moment of stunned silence, as if that thought had never crossed her mind. She tried to recover by repeating a tired Democrat line about “making the rich pay their fair share,” but the damage was done. The clip went viral on social media and cable news as yet another example of Harris being unable to provide any rationale for her proposals.
While Harris defenders have alleged that Trump hasn’t provided any specifics about his economic plans either, the difference is that Trump has a record of success to point to.
Under Trump, the country saw record increases in real wages and job growth, along with low inflation and high business optimism. Even following the depths of the pandemic-induced economic dip, the country was seeing a sharp “v-shaped” recovery before that recovery stagnated under Biden and Harris. Trump’s basic pitch is, “I did it once – elect me, and I’ll do it again.”
Joe Biden himself has said there is “no daylight” between him and Harris, while Harris has repeatedly stated that there is “not a single thing” she would have done differently than Joe Biden. The Biden-Harris record is one of 20 percent cumulative inflation and economic stagnation, leaving voters no reason to be confident things would be any different if Harris were in charge.
With two weeks to go until Election Day, Harris now may not have enough time left to make the case to voters about how her plan could work – assuming there is a case to be made at all.
Andrew Shirley is a veteran speechwriter and AMAC Newsline columnist. His commentary can be found on X at @AA_Shirley.
