Author: Editorial Staff

No comments

Is Deputy AG Lisa Monaco Undermining Antitrust Policies to Protect Big Tech?

  By , ,

In a series of controversial moves, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco has consolidated power within the Department of Justice (DOJ), raising concerns about its independence and impartiality. According to findings reported by Blaze News, Monaco’s actions could undermine President Joe Biden’s antitrust policies while complicating the efforts of future administrations, including a potential return of Donald Trump to the White House.

The timing and scope of Monaco’s edits to the DOJ manual suggest a strategic effort to entrench control under her office, potentially shielding Big Tech giants like Google from antitrust accountability. Critics argue that her history of ties to Big Tech and the recent consolidation of authority paint a troubling picture of compromised justice.

Centralizing Power: A Strategic Shift

Beginning in 2022, Monaco implemented significant changes to the DOJ manual that centralize authority within her office. These include:

  • Requiring her oversight in key communications between the DOJ and the White House.
  • Gaining the authority to adjudicate disciplinary actions and appeals related to DOJ attorneys.
  • Adding provisions mandating her involvement in high-level legal and administrative matters.

While these changes may seem procedural, their cumulative effect consolidates power under Monaco, potentially delaying or obstructing a future administration’s ability to enact reforms.

Big Tech Ties and Conflicts of Interest

Before joining the DOJ, Monaco had professional connections to major tech companies through her work at O’Melveny & Myers, a law firm representing Google and Apple in high-stakes cases. She also advised Google on Project Maven, a controversial artificial intelligence project for military drones, while working with WestExec Advisors.

Critics, including Mike Davis of the Article III Project, argue that these connections create a conflict of interest. Monaco’s edits to DOJ protocols, combined with her professional history, suggest a bias toward protecting Big Tech interests, even as the DOJ pursues two landmark antitrust lawsuits against Google.

“Just about the only thing President Biden got right in his nearly four years is his antitrust law enforcement against Big Tech,” Davis told Blaze News. “Now, Lisa Monaco…seems to be undermining her boss’ long-standing antitrust policies to curry favor with Google.”

Implications for Future Presidents

Although Monaco’s changes began before the 2024 election cycle, their long-term effects could significantly impact future administrations:

  1. Limiting Executive Power: Requiring DAG oversight in key communications could restrict a new president’s ability to swiftly implement policy changes.
  2. Protecting Big Tech: Monaco’s centralized authority may create procedural hurdles for future administrations seeking to challenge monopolistic practices.
  3. Setting a Precedent: Consolidating power in the DAG’s office establishes a framework that future deputy attorneys general could exploit, further reducing DOJ accountability.

These structural changes could hinder any administration—Republican or Democrat—from enacting meaningful reforms or reversing entrenched policies.

Timing and Motivation

While Monaco’s actions began before Trump’s potential return to office became a factor, the timing raises questions about whether they serve to shield the Biden administration’s policies from being easily overturned. Davis has suggested that Monaco’s motivations could extend beyond administrative streamlining, stating, “If Lisa Monaco is looking for her next job and can’t do her current job, she should resign immediately.”

Conclusion

The DOJ’s role as an impartial arbiter of justice is critical to American democracy. However, Lisa Monaco’s consolidation of power within the department raises serious concerns about its independence. Her actions not only undermine Biden’s antitrust policies but also create significant challenges for future administrations, including the ability to hold Big Tech accountable.

Monaco’s edits to the DOJ manual deserve closer scrutiny, not only for their immediate impact but for the precedent they set. As the 2024 election approaches, the American people must demand transparency and accountability to ensure the DOJ serves the public interest—not political or corporate agendas.

References:

No comments

The Economic Consequences of Raising the Federal Minimum Wage

  By , , ,

Kamala Harris has taken a bold stance in advocating for a federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour, a policy intended to benefit low-income Americans by giving them a “living wage.” However, beneath the promise lies a series of economic implications—some predictable, others less so—that could leave Americans with unintended consequences like inflation, job cuts, and business closures. Rather than doubling wages for entry-level positions, why not consider solutions that build skill sets, enabling workers to move beyond minimum-wage jobs and pursue stable, well-paid careers?

How Many People Benefit from a Federal Minimum Wage Increase?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about 17 million workers would directly benefit if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 per hour, with another 10 million potentially experiencing “ripple effect” increases as businesses adjust their wage structures to maintain pay equity. However, this benefit comes with underlying issues. Doubling wages may improve hourly income for these workers, but it may not enhance their long-term economic stability if price inflation erodes their increased purchasing power.

Moreover, most minimum-wage jobs were originally designed as stepping stones for young or inexperienced workers entering the workforce, not as positions to support families long-term. Today, rather than inflating wages for entry-level positions, wouldn’t it be more effective to equip workers with marketable skills through vocational training? This approach offers a sustainable solution that allows people to climb the career ladder, increasing their earning potential without risking economic strain.

Hidden Costs: Will Higher Wages Mean Higher Prices for Everyone?

When labor costs account for 50% to 70% of the cost of sales (COS), a federal minimum wage increase inevitably impacts the entire supply chain. This rise in expenses can drive up the cost of goods and services, affecting everyone’s budget—from groceries to home essentials to dining out. Businesses, particularly in sectors like retail, hospitality, and manufacturing, may not have the profit margins to absorb such a sharp increase in expenses, even if they’re large corporations. And for smaller businesses, absorbing these costs is hardly an option.

So, who ends up paying for the wage increase? Consumers. Price hikes follow as businesses adjust to cover their bottom line. Although a higher minimum wage sounds appealing on paper, it could ultimately lead to a reduction in purchasing power if the increased wages are offset by inflation—a situation where everyone loses.

Small Businesses Under Pressure: How Will They Survive?

Small businesses, which employ roughly 47% of the American workforce, face an uncertain future if a minimum wage hike is mandated. Unlike large corporations, which may have some leeway to absorb labor costs, small businesses often operate on slim margins and cannot afford to double their wage expenses. Proponents of a federal minimum wage increase argue that tax breaks and other concessions for small businesses can help ease the burden, but these temporary measures are not long-term solutions.

In practice, small businesses may have to resort to cutting hours, reducing hiring, or raising prices just to stay afloat. And if even these measures aren’t enough, some businesses might close altogether, particularly in rural or low-income communities that rely heavily on local commerce. This means fewer job opportunities, reduced economic mobility, and potentially an increase in small business closures—hardly the intended outcome of a policy meant to “help” workers.

Automation: The Unseen Consequence of Wage Increases

One of the most overlooked consequences of raising the minimum wage is that it encourages automation. As labor costs climb, many businesses will consider investing in technology to reduce dependence on human labor. In recent years, industries from fast food to retail to logistics have experimented with automation to manage operational costs. With rising labor costs, this trend is likely to accelerate.

Self-checkout kiosks, robotic food preparation, and automated warehouse systems are just a few examples of how technology could replace minimum-wage jobs. For workers whose positions are replaced by automation, the minimum wage increase is a moot point; they are left without a job. A 2021 report by the Brookings Institution predicted that automation would disproportionately impact workers in low-wage jobs, such as food service and retail. Raising the wage to $15 an hour could accelerate this shift, leaving millions unemployed and dependent on government support.

Inflation: An Economic Domino Effect

If minimum wage increases lead to price hikes, inflation is almost inevitable. The resulting higher cost of goods and services doesn’t just impact minimum-wage workers; it affects everyone. For middle- and lower-income families, the rising cost of living can be especially burdensome. And since inflation tends to rise faster than wages, the potential benefits of a wage increase could evaporate as expenses climb, leaving workers in the same financial position as before or even worse off.

Proponents of a federal minimum wage increase argue that low-income families need a living wage to thrive. However, if inflation climbs in response to higher wages, the benefit is likely to be short-lived. Instead of promoting economic growth, an inflated minimum wage risks eroding the purchasing power of wage earners across all income brackets.

Government Subsidies: Short-Term Fixes with Long-Term Consequences

To counteract inflation and ease the burden of rising living costs, Harris and other advocates propose increased government subsidies for essentials like housing, food, and healthcare. However, this approach is fraught with issues. Subsidies require funding, which could come from either tax increases or by printing more money—both options with significant economic implications.

Taxing businesses and high earners might sound reasonable, but it reduces funds available for business expansion, hiring, and wages. Alternatively, printing more money risks inflationary pressure, further raising the cost of living. These subsidies might help low-income families in the short term, but they create dependency rather than fostering independence. Instead, a long-term solution, like investing in skills development and vocational training, would create sustainable change without adding to the national debt or inflation.

Higher Interest Rates and the Risk of Recession

The Federal Reserve has already raised interest rates in response to recent inflation, and a federal minimum wage increase could lead to even higher rates. If inflation rises again due to wage increases, the Fed may continue to increase interest rates to stabilize prices. However, this strategy has a ripple effect: higher interest rates slow down spending, borrowing, and investment, which could tip the economy into recession.

Americans are still feeling the impact of recent rate hikes, which have made mortgages, credit cards, and car loans more expensive. A wage hike that triggers further rate increases could push the economy toward recession, affecting job growth and investment in all sectors.

Training Programs: A Practical Solution for Economic Mobility

So, if raising the minimum wage carries so many risks, what’s the alternative? One solution lies in vocational training and skills development. Programs that teach practical skills for well-paying fields, such as healthcare, construction, and technology, can offer long-term benefits for workers, equipping them for careers that pay well above minimum wage. This approach also supports economic mobility and growth, reducing reliance on entry-level jobs and creating more high-quality positions.

Investing in skill-building programs, rather than short-term wage increases, allows workers to develop expertise in fields with high demand and good pay. For example, fields like electrical work, plumbing, and coding all offer substantial wages without requiring a college degree. By empowering workers with skills, the economy grows without risking inflation, job cuts, or unsustainable government spending.

Conclusion: A Sustainable Path to Economic Growth

While raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour may appear to be a quick fix, it risks long-term harm to the economy. From price inflation and increased unemployment to the strain on small businesses, the policy comes with considerable trade-offs. Rather than relying on wage mandates and government subsidies, we should consider investing in skill-building programs that empower workers to transition out of entry-level jobs into meaningful, high-paying careers.

In the end, building a self-sufficient workforce is not just better for individual workers; it’s better for America’s economy. A federal minimum wage increase may benefit some in the short term, but a skilled, independent workforce offers a far more sustainable and prosperous future for all Americans.

References:

  1. Congressional Budget Office. (2021). The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56975
  2. U.S. Small Business Administration. Small Business GDP: 1998–2014. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/small-business-gdp-1998-2014
  3. Brookings Institution. (2021). Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/automation-and-artificial-intelligence-how-machines-affect-people-and-places/
No comments

What Aussies Think of Harris – Sky News

  By , ,

What the Aussies think of Harris should come as no surprise. According to Sky News, even the betting sites have Trump at 60 to 40 to win the November election. Commentators even predict the world will be in trouble with a Harris-Walz win.

No comments

Rachel Morin’s Tragic Death and Kamala Harris’s Misleading Deflection

  By ,

In the wake of Rachel Morin’s tragic death—a woman who was brutally beaten, raped, and murdered—Vice President Kamala Harris expressed sympathy but quickly shifted the blame to former President Trump’s border policies. This moment highlights a concerning tendency for Harris’ misleading deflection, and responsibility, and misrepresent the implications of current immigration policies. Instead of acknowledging the failures that led to such heinous crimes, Harris’s attempt to point fingers raises serious questions about her leadership and the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to public safety.

K Harris – CNN 2024

Shifting the Blame

Rachel Morin’s death was devastating, and as more details emerged about her attacker, the implications of weak border security became glaring. Harris, in her typical fashion, expressed remorse but quickly pointed fingers at Trump, blaming his immigration policies for the state of affairs at the border.

This is a dangerous and dishonest deflection. Trump’s policies were built on the principle of deterrence—strengthening the border, implementing the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and pushing for the construction of a border wall. These measures were meant to prevent exactly what happened to Rachel Morin: dangerous criminals slipping through the cracks. Yet, under the Biden-Harris administration, the border crisis has worsened. Illegal crossings have reached record highs, and the administration’s lax approach to enforcement has allowed many dangerous individuals to enter unchecked.

The tragic result? Crimes like the murder of Rachel Morin—preventable, had our leaders taken a tougher stance on border security.

The “Remain in Mexico” Policy: A Missed Opportunity

One of Trump’s most effective border strategies was the “Remain in Mexico” program (officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols). This policy required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed in the United States, dramatically reducing the number of unchecked migrants entering the country. It was a strong deterrent for illegal crossings and ensured that only vetted individuals could await legal decisions on U.S. soil.

The Biden-Harris administration, however, terminated this program shortly after taking office. The result has been chaos at the border, with overwhelmed immigration authorities and a surge of unvetted migrants flooding into the country. This policy reversal has opened the floodgates to criminals entering the U.S., contributing to tragedies like the one that took Rachel Morin’s life.

Had the “Remain in Mexico” policy been left in place, it’s possible that Rachel Morin’s attacker would never have been able to enter the United States. This is a direct failure of the Biden-Harris administration’s border policies, and Harris’s attempt to blame Trump for this tragic crime rings hollow.

The Facts on Border Security

Trump’s border policies were not without controversy, but they were effective in controlling illegal immigration. His administration reduced illegal crossings to their lowest levels in years through a combination of physical barriers and agreements with Mexico to manage asylum seekers. The “Remain in Mexico” policy, for example, required migrants to stay in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed, reducing the flow of unchecked individuals into the United States.

These policies were working—until the Biden-Harris administration came into power and systematically dismantled them. They promised a more “humane” approach to immigration, but the reality has been a humanitarian and security disaster. With record numbers of migrants flooding across the border, law enforcement is overwhelmed, and the process of vetting individuals has broken down. This has allowed criminals to enter the country, resulting in tragedies like the murder of Rachel Morin.

Harris’s Tough-on-Crime Stance: Gangs, Cartels, Drugs, and Missing Children

Harris has tried to portray herself as tough on crime, especially when it comes to combating gangs and drug cartels. However, her administration’s policies do not align with this narrative. The rise in illegal immigration has enabled criminal organizations to expand their operations, trafficking drugs and contributing to the crisis of missing children.

The surge in drug trafficking has been particularly alarming. With the Biden-Harris administration’s focus on dismantling enforcement measures at the border, drugs like fentanyl have flooded into the U.S., causing countless overdoses and deaths. Families are devastated as they lose loved ones to this epidemic, and the connection to border security cannot be ignored. Weakness in border policies has allowed drug cartels to operate with impunity, further exacerbating the violence and chaos at the border.

Moreover, the issue of missing children is a critical concern tied to this crisis. Human trafficking has skyrocketed, and vulnerable children are often the first victims. When Harris deflects responsibility for the state of the border, she ignores the broader implications of her administration’s policies, which have made it easier for predators to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Her failure to address these interconnected issues raises serious questions about her commitment to truly being tough on crime. Instead of confronting the reality of the situation, she chooses to blame others while vulnerable Americans suffer.

Misrepresenting Trump’s Stance on Law and Order

In her interview, Harris also mischaracterized Trump’s approach to law enforcement, claiming that he would use the military to imprison rioters. This is a gross distortion of Trump’s actual position. Trump never advocated for widespread military intervention to round up citizens en masse. Instead, his administration emphasized the need for law enforcement to protect public safety and federal property during periods of unrest, such as the riots in Portland and Minneapolis.

When local governments failed to stop rioting and protect their communities, Trump supported the National Guard’s presence as a last resort—not to imprison peaceful protestors, but to restore order where chaos had taken over. Harris’s attempt to twist this into something nefarious only serves to distract from the failures of her own administration, which has seen crime soar and borders weakened.

Voter Backlash: The Consequences of Deflection

Harris’s tendency to deflect questions and avoid direct answers is beginning to take a toll on her standing with voters. Americans are looking for leaders who will take accountability and address pressing issues head-on, particularly regarding public safety and border security.

Instead of providing solutions or engaging in meaningful dialogue, Harris often redirects the conversation to blame her predecessor. This strategy may play well in a partisan context, but it alienates voters who want to see genuine leadership. The continued deflection has left many feeling frustrated, as they crave a vice president who acknowledges the current crises and works towards practical solutions.

As crime rates rise and issues like drug trafficking and human trafficking grow more severe, voters are losing patience with Harris’s avoidance tactics. They want a leader who will stand up and take responsibility, not one who merely points fingers at others while the problems continue to escalate.

Conclusion

Rachel Morin’s death is a tragedy that should have sparked a deeper conversation about border security and public safety. Instead, Kamala Harris used the moment to deflect blame and misrepresent her predecessor’s policies. While Harris offers condolences, her refusal to take responsibility for the failures of the Biden-Harris administration’s border policies is clear.

It’s time for Harris and her administration to own up to the consequences of their actions. The safety of Americans, like Rachel Morin, is on the line. Instead of blaming the past, we need leaders who will address the real issues at hand and prioritize the protection of our borders and citizens.

References

  1. “Rachel Morin’s Murder Investigation.” Fox News, October 2024. This segment provided updates on the tragic case of Rachel Morin, discussing the law enforcement response and public outcry surrounding the crime. Available at: Fox News
  2. “Remain in Mexico Policy Explained.” The Heritage Foundation, 2023. An analysis of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) and how the Biden-Harris administration’s reversal of the policy has impacted border security. Available at: Heritage Foundation
  3. “Kamala Harris on Border Security and Immigration.” Blaze Media, October 2024. In this interview, Harris responded to questions about border control and pointed to Trump’s policies, emphasizing her administration’s approach to immigration reform. Available at: Blaze Media
  4. “Surge of Illegal Immigration Under Biden Administration.” Center for Immigration Studies, 2024. This report discusses the increase in illegal border crossings and its impact on public safety, as well as the role of drug cartels and human trafficking in the crisis. Available at: Center for Immigration Studies
  5. “Crime and Immigration: The Link.” National Review, 2024. A detailed look at how lenient border policies have allowed criminals to enter the U.S., highlighting the failures of the Biden-Harris administration in addressing the issue. Available at: National Review
  6. “Trump’s Law and Order Stance During Riots.” The Federalist, 2020. This article examines Trump’s position on using the National Guard and federal law enforcement to manage rioting and public unrest, countering claims that he advocated mass imprisonment. Available at: The Federalist
No comments

Plagiarism Allegations Against Kamala Harris: A Closer Look at “Smart on Crime”

  By ,

Vice President Kamala Harris has been criticized over allegations of plagiarism in her 2009 book Smart on Crime. Conservative activists and researchers have raised concerns over several passages in the book, which they claim were lifted directly from other sources without proper attribution.

The Allegations: A Breakdown

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo and plagiarism researcher Stefan Weber have led the charge, identifying more than a dozen instances in Harris’ book that appear to copy other sources, including a 2008 report by the Associated Press (AP), a press release from John Jay College, and even entries from Wikipedia​. The New York Sun ​   VT News

  1. High School Graduation Rates: One of the most notable examples comes from a section of the book that discusses public school graduation rates in cities like Detroit, Indianapolis, and Cleveland. This passage closely mirrors an AP report, with only minor wording differences. The AP’s original text mentioned, “about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation’s largest cities receive diplomas.” Harris’s book replicates this almost verbatim​ The New York Sun
  2. The High Point Drug Strategy: Another striking example comes from a passage about the High Point drug strategy, which Harris and her co-author describe as a successful crime-reduction initiative. This section was reportedly copied almost word-for-word from a John Jay College press release. The only significant changes were in formatting—such as spelling out “percent” and minor word choices. The New York Sun
  3. Wikipedia: There are even claims that parts of the book were taken directly from Wikipedia, a source widely considered unreliable for academic purposes. This has added to the controversy surrounding the integrity of Harris’ book. VT News

Reactions and Harris’ Response

So far, Harris’ team has not issued a detailed response to the plagiarism allegations. When reached for comment, co-author Joan O’C. Hamilton was reportedly surprised by the claims and unable to provide an immediate explanation. She noted that she hadn’t reviewed the specifics yet​. The New York Sun

These allegations echo past plagiarism controversies in American politics, most notably President Joe Biden’s 1987 presidential campaign, which was derailed after it was revealed that he plagiarized speeches from British politician Neil Kinnock. The echoes of this earlier scandal are already being felt, with some conservative commentators drawing direct comparisons between Harris and Biden​. The New York Sun  VT News

Impact on Harris’ Political Career

The timing of these allegations is particularly damaging. As Vice President, Harris is constantly under scrutiny, and any controversy can have significant political ramifications. Plagiarism is considered a serious ethical violation, and while some of the alleged offenses may be minor, others are more substantial. The lack of proper citations, especially in a high-profile book, calls into question the standards Harris maintained while promoting her “smart on crime” approach.

Critics have been quick to pounce on this opportunity to discredit her, especially with an eye toward the 2024 election. Republican Senator J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, sarcastically commented on social media, “I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia.” Such jabs may fuel further distrust among voters, particularly in conservative circles​. The New York Sun

Conclusion

The plagiarism allegations against Kamala Harris may not yet have reached the level of a career-ending scandal, but they certainly tarnish her reputation. In a world where ethical standards are paramount, especially in politics, such claims can weaken the trust that voters place in a candidate. It remains to be seen how Harris and her team will address these accusations and whether they will have a lasting impact on her political ambitions.

References:

  1. “Kamala Harris Accused of Plagiarism in 2009 Book.” The New York Sun. Retrieved from: New York Sun
  2. “Kamala Harris Plagiarism Claims Stir Controversy.” VT News. Retrieved from: VT News
No comments

Can Kamala Harris Truly Support American Innovation and Workers, or Is It Just More Government Overreach?

  By , , ,

Kamala Harris, in Item #7 of her A New Way Forward, asserts that her administration, along with President Biden, has passed several pieces of landmark legislation—ranging from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to the CHIPS and Science Act. She claims these programs have created more than 1.6 million manufacturing and construction jobs, launched 60,000 infrastructure projects, and brought private investment into key industries like semiconductors, clean energy, and electric vehicles.

However, from a conservative perspective, these claims require deeper scrutiny. Is this another case of government overreach masquerading as job creation? Or do Harris’s claims overlook the inefficiencies and distortions caused by heavy-handed federal intervention? Let’s explore whether Harris’s vision for innovation and jobs is truly viable—or just inflated rhetoric.

1. The Questionable Job Creation Claims

Harris boasts that 1.6 million manufacturing and construction jobs were created during the Biden-Harris administration. At face value, that number sounds impressive—but what’s behind it?

Much of the job growth cited likely reflects a post-pandemic recovery, with workers re-entering the labor market as the economy reopened [1]. It’s important to distinguish between reclaimed jobs and newly created jobs. As millions of Americans returned to work following COVID-19 lockdowns, the Biden-Harris administration took credit for this natural recovery, without acknowledging that many of these workers were simply resuming roles they had prior to the pandemic [2].

From a conservative standpoint, this is misleading. Genuine job creation stems from organic market growth, driven by private investment and innovation, not from government programs. Government-driven job creation, especially when tied to massive spending bills, tends to result in temporary positions that dissolve once the funds dry up [3]. Conservatives argue that a better approach to job growth lies in reducing regulations and lowering taxes, creating an environment where businesses can thrive and real jobs can be created—not jobs dependent on government contracts or subsidies.

Reality Check:
If Harris’s 1.6 million jobs claim includes people merely returning to their jobs, it’s far from the job boom the administration wants to take credit for. True economic growth comes from reducing government interference in the labor market, not expanding it [4].

2. 60,000 Infrastructure Projects—New or Leftover?

Harris proudly cites 60,000 infrastructure projects that the administration has funded. But the reality is that many of these projects could have been carried over from previous administrations, particularly the Obama years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under President Obama promised similar large-scale infrastructure improvements, yet many projects remained unfinished or underfunded by the time he left office [5].

This raises an important question: are these new projects, or are they part of a backlog? If much of the funding Harris touts is repurposed from earlier initiatives, the administration may be inflating its accomplishments. Projects that have been delayed for a decade hardly represent fresh investment in America’s future [6].

Conservatives often argue that federal involvement in infrastructure projects leads to inefficiencies and delays. Big government programs tend to be bogged down by bureaucracy, with long timelines and budget overruns. A conservative solution would focus on empowering state and local governments—or even private industry—to handle these projects. These entities are often better suited to complete infrastructure projects on time and within budget because they face real accountability, unlike federal programs [7].

Reality Check:
If a significant portion of the 60,000 projects are leftovers from previous administrations, Harris’s claim that her administration is driving a new infrastructure renaissance falls flat. Conservatives would prefer a decentralized approach that gives power back to the states and the private sector to manage their infrastructure needs [8].

3. Private Investment—Government-Led or Market-Driven?

Another key claim Harris makes is the $900 billion in private-sector investment supposedly spurred by these legislative efforts. But is this the result of government action, or would it have happened anyway?

A conservative rebuttal here is clear: market forces, not government intervention, are the best drivers of innovation and investment. While tax incentives can temporarily boost certain industries, artificially steering the private sector with government programs distorts the market [9]. This is especially true in the energy sector, where policies that heavily favor green energy have ignored market demand for more reliable, affordable energy sources like natural gas and oil [10].

For example, the subsidies and investments tied to the Inflation Reduction Act have pushed companies into renewable energy sectors, even when demand and profitability might not align with these ventures [11]. Conservatives argue that free-market forces would better allocate resources to industries that consumers genuinely need, rather than those favored by the government’s green energy agenda.

Reality Check:
Private investment works best when it’s market-driven, not manipulated by government programs. Harris’s focus on government-led incentives risks distorting industries, leading to inefficiencies and poor long-term outcomes [12].

Tim Mossholder

4. Unions and Labor Market Distortion

Harris proudly declares that her administration is the “most pro-labor” in history, citing her support for unions as a cornerstone of middle-class prosperity. Yet, from a conservative viewpoint, this pro-union stance creates distortions in the labor market.

The PRO Act—which Harris champions—would eliminate right-to-work laws, forcing workers in certain states to join unions whether they want to or not [13]. Conservatives argue that workers should have the freedom to choose whether they wish to join a union, rather than being coerced into membership. Additionally, union-driven wage increases can lead to higher costs for businesses, resulting in job losses or reduced competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing sectors [14].

A conservative approach favors free-market labor policies that give workers flexibility and businesses the ability to compete globally. While unions may benefit some workers, forcing them into all sectors can stifle economic growth and innovation. Harris’s pro-union stance prioritizes union leadership and bureaucrats over individual worker freedoms and the competitiveness of American industries [15].

Reality Check:
Harris’s support for policies like the PRO Act undermines individual worker freedom and risks raising costs for businesses, making America less competitive on the global stage. Conservatives advocate for worker choice, not union mandates [16].

5. Economic Nationalism or Regulatory Burden?

Harris claims that her administration will not tolerate unfair trade practices from China or other countries that undermine American workers. But while this rhetoric sounds strong, the broader regulatory environment under the Biden-Harris administration may be hurting American businesses more than it helps them.

Many conservatives believe that instead of fostering economic nationalism, the administration’s regulatory policies, especially in areas like energy and environmental protections, have made it harder for American businesses to compete globally [17]. By imposing burdensome regulations on industries like oil and gas, the administration is forcing companies to either relocate production abroad or shut down altogether, resulting in job losses and reduced economic output [18].

Rather than relying on government regulations and trade barriers, conservatives argue that the best way to combat unfair trade practices from China or other competitors is to strengthen the domestic business environment. Lowering taxes, reducing regulatory burdens, and encouraging energy independence will give American companies the tools they need to succeed without heavy-handed government intervention [19].

Reality Check:
Harris’s tough talk on trade might resonate with voters, but the administration’s broader regulatory policies make it harder for American businesses to compete. A conservative solution focuses on empowering businesses through deregulation and energy independence, not more government interference [20].

Conclusion: Harris’s Promises or Government Overreach?

Kamala Harris’s vision for supporting American innovation and workers is packed with ambitious claims of job creation, infrastructure investment, and economic growth. But from a conservative perspective, these promises are more likely to result in government overreach than sustainable prosperity. Whether through inflating job creation numbers, repurposing old infrastructure projects, or distorting market forces with government spending, the Biden-Harris approach leans heavily on the belief that government intervention is the key to success.

In reality, free markets, individual choice, and limited government are the true drivers of innovation and economic growth. Harris’s policies may create temporary gains, but the long-term consequences—inefficiency, higher costs, and reduced competitiveness—are far more concerning. For America to truly thrive, we need policies that empower businesses and workers, not bind them with union mandates and government-driven programs.

References:

  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Market Recovery Post-COVID.” https://www.bls.gov
  2. Economic Policy Institute. “Job Growth During Biden-Harris Administration: Fact or Fiction?” https://www.epi.org
  3. Cato Institute. “How Government Spending Distorts Job Creation.” https://www.cato.org
  4. National Review. “The Reality Behind Biden’s 1.6 Million Jobs Claim.” https://www.nationalreview.com
  5. Heritage Foundation. “Obama’s Infrastructure Legacy: What Happened to ARRA?” https://www.heritage.org
  6. Congressional Budget Office. “Infrastructure Funding and the Obama Administration’s Projects.” https://www.cbo.gov
  7. Reason Foundation. “Why Federal Infrastructure Projects Fail.” https://www.reason.org
  8. American Conservative Union. “State and Local Solutions to Infrastructure Development.” https://www.conservative.org
  9. The Wall Street Journal. “Private Investment and Government Distortion.” https://www.wsj.com
  10. Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Green Energy Subsidies and Market Distortions.” https://www.cei.org
  11. The Federalist. “Inflation Reduction Act’s Green Energy Agenda: Boon or Bust?” https://thefederalist.com
  12. Mercatus Center. “Government-Led Investment vs. Market-Driven Innovation.” https://www.mercatus.org
  13. The Hill. “How the PRO Act Threatens Worker Freedom.” https://www.thehill.com
  14. Americans for Prosperity. “Why Right-to-Work Laws Benefit Workers and Businesses.” https://americansforprosperity.org
  15. National Right to Work Committee. “The Case Against the PRO Act.” https://www.nrtwc.org
  16. Manhattan Institute. “The Economic Impact of Unions on American Industries.” https://www.manhattan-institute.org
  17. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Regulations and the Competitiveness of American Businesses.” https://www.uschamber.com
  18. Institute for Energy Research. “The Regulatory Burden on the Oil and Gas Industry.” https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
  19. Hoover Institution. “Deregulation and Economic Growth: A Conservative Perspective.” https://www.hoover.org
  20. Foundation for Economic Education. “Energy Independence and American Competitiveness.” https://fee.org
No comments

Kamala Harris’ Social Security Claims: Fact-Checking the Reality Behind the Rhetoric

  By

 

In item 6 of Kamala Harris’ A New Way Forward, she asserts that Donald Trump and Republicans want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. She pledges to protect these programs by raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires to ensure they pay their “fair share.” While this popular Democratic talking point sounds promising, it misleads the public and oversimplifies complex issues, ignoring the real challenges facing Social Security’s solvency.

In this post, we’ll analyze Harris’ claims, debunk her proposals, and explore the financial realities of Social Security that politicians like her often sidestep.

Misrepresenting Conservative Proposals

Kamala Harris frequently frames Republican proposals as attempts to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. This is a gross mischaracterization. In reality, conservative lawmakers have called for reforms to extend the lifespan of these programs, not dismantle them. These reforms often include gradually raising the retirement age or implementing benefit adjustments for higher-income earners. These measures are essential to keeping Social Security viable for future generations, as the current model is unsustainable without changes.

Harris’ narrative ignores the crux of the problem: Social Security’s financial outlook has deteriorated, and reform is the only way to prevent future insolvency.

Social Security’s Financial Challenges: A Harsh Reality

The Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2034-2035, and once that happens, payroll taxes will only cover about 75-80% of scheduled benefits. This shortfall stems largely from shifting demographics: the Baby Boomer generation, which was the largest contributor to the fund, is now entering retirement, drawing on benefits at an unprecedented rate.

In the mid-20th century, five workers supported each retiree. Today, the ratio is less than three workers per retiree, and this gap is growing. These demographic trends are the root cause of Social Security’s financial strain—something Harris fails to address while pushing her tax-the-rich solution as a cure-all.

Harris’ “Tax the Rich” Solution: A Political Band-Aid

One of Harris’ key proposals is to raise taxes on the wealthy, ensuring millionaires and billionaires contribute their “fair share” to preserve Social Security. While this idea may appeal to many voters, it falls far short of solving the issue.

Experts have found that even substantial tax increases on the rich would only close a small portion of Social Security’s funding gap. Taxing the wealthy to the extent required would also risk broader economic consequences, potentially discouraging investment and stunting economic growth. Harris’ vague calls for higher taxes ignore the real numbers, making her solution more of a political talking point than a viable fix for Social Security’s looming shortfall.

Borrowing From Social Security: An Unaddressed Issue

One of the biggest factors contributing to Social Security’s financial crisis is Congress’ decades-long practice of borrowing from the trust fund to cover other government expenses. Over the years, Congress has siphoned an estimated $2.8 trillion from the Social Security reserves, replacing the funds with U.S. Treasury bonds. These bonds are obligations that must be repaid with interest when the funds are needed for benefits.

While technically this borrowing isn’t illegal, it exacerbates Social Security’s funding crisis. When the bonds are redeemed, the government must raise funds either through increased taxes, more borrowing, or cutting other programs. This creates a fiscal strain that Harris’ platform fails to address.

Raising the Retirement Age: A Reasonable Proposal

Harris claims that Republicans want to raise the retirement age to 71, framing this as an unjust burden on Americans. However, raising the retirement age is a reasonable proposal that reflects longer life expectancies. The last time the retirement age was adjusted was during the Reagan administration in the 1980s, when it was raised from 65 to 67.

Given that Americans are living longer, healthier lives, gradually increasing the retirement age is a sensible way to keep Social Security solvent for future generations. This proposal isn’t about depriving retirees of their benefits but about ensuring that the program remains sustainable. Harris’ opposition to this measure distorts the broader conversation around Social Security reform.

Republican Proposals: Reform, Not Dismantling

Contrary to Harris’ portrayal, Republican proposals for Social Security focus on sustainability, not elimination. These reforms include:

  • Means-testing benefits for wealthier Americans to prevent those with significant resources from drawing benefits they don’t need.
  • Allowing younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes into personal accounts, providing them with more control over their retirement savings.
  • Gradually increasing the retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy, ensuring the program remains solvent.

These ideas are designed to make Social Security work for future generations, a concept Harris disregards in favor of short-term political gain.

Congress’ Unpaid Debt: The Legacy of Borrowing

The practice of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund has left a financial burden that remains unpaid. The estimated $2.8 trillion borrowed from the trust fund over the decades must eventually be repaid, but doing so will strain the federal budget. When these funds need to be redeemed, the government will either have to raise taxes, cut spending, or borrow more, adding to the national debt.

Harris’ platform ignores this deeper issue, offering no solutions to the longstanding practice of borrowing from Social Security. Her focus on taxing the wealthy doesn’t account for the structural problems Congress has created through irresponsible fiscal policies.

Conclusion: A Reality Check on Harris’ Claims

Kamala Harris’ rhetoric on Social Security presents a skewed picture of the program’s challenges and the solutions needed to preserve it. Her plan to raise taxes on the wealthy is an incomplete and unsustainable solution. Social Security faces a demographic crisis that requires meaningful reform—reforms that Harris refuses to engage with.

By contrast, conservative proposals offer practical ways to keep Social Security viable, including adjusting the retirement age and means-testing benefits. These are not attacks on the program, but necessary changes to preserve it for future generations.

Ultimately, Harris’ focus on fear-mongering and short-term fixes does a disservice to the American public. It’s time to have a real conversation about Social Security reform—one that Harris has failed to initiate.

References:

  1. “Social Security: What You Need to Know,” Social Security Administration, ssa.gov.
  2. “The Social Security Trust Fund and Borrowing,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org
  3. “Social Security Reform: GOP vs. Democrats,” The Balance, thebalance.com
  4. “Kamala Harris’ Plan on Social Security,” Harris Campaign Website, kamalaharris.org

The Truth Behind Kamala Harris’s Healthcare Claims: Temporary Fixes, Long-Term Problems

  By , ,

In Part 5 of A New Way Forward, Kamala Harris claims to have fought tirelessly for healthcare reform, lowering costs for consumers by taking on Big Pharma and insurance companies, defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from Republican attacks, and even removing medical debt from credit reports as Vice President. These bold claims, though compelling, deserve a closer look. A more careful examination reveals that many of her so-called “victories” in healthcare are either overstated or reliant on temporary fixes—far from the long-term, sustainable reforms our country needs.

Taking on Big Pharma and Insurance Companies: A Hollow Victory?

Harris claims that as California’s Attorney General, she took on Big Pharma and insurance companies to lower costs. The reality, however, tells a different story. While it’s true that Harris spearheaded lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, and took a stand against the industry’s role in the opioid crisis, these efforts had little impact on healthcare costs for the average Californian.

Most notably, Harris’s office blocked the merger between Anthem and Cigna in 2017, citing potential harm to competition and consumer choice. On the surface, this action may appear to align with her claim of fighting against insurance giants. However, blocking corporate mergers does not directly translate into lower premiums or reduced out-of-pocket costs for healthcare services. In fact, many would argue that robust competition could have spurred more innovation and cost-efficiency in the healthcare marketplace, potentially leading to lower prices.

The conservative argument here is straightforward: Harris’s efforts as Attorney General were focused on niche areas of healthcare reform—opioid litigation and corporate mergers—that, while necessary, did little to address the root problems of high healthcare costs or make a meaningful difference to most consumers.

Her Role in Defending the ACA: More Rhetoric than Action

As a U.S. Senator, Harris paints herself as a champion who fought off the Trump administration’s attempts to repeal the ACA. But while she was indeed vocal in her opposition, her actions were largely symbolic. Republicans attempted to dismantle the ACA in 2017, and although Harris co-sponsored several bills aimed at protecting key provisions of the law, her efforts didn’t include introducing significant legislative reforms herself.

From a conservative point of view, this is where her rhetoric begins to unravel. Although she stood alongside fellow Democrats in voting to preserve the ACA, Harris hasn’t offered substantive reforms to address its many flaws. The ACA has been criticized for reducing competition in the insurance market, leading to fewer choices for consumers and skyrocketing premiums. While Harris was content to defend the status quo, the truth is that many Americans have seen their healthcare costs rise under the ACA, particularly those who do not qualify for government subsidies.

Harris’s “defense” of the ACA can be viewed as more of a political stance than meaningful reform. Conservatives argue that while the ACA expanded coverage, it did so at the expense of affordability and choice, leaving middle-class families with higher premiums and fewer options. Harris’s fight to preserve it doesn’t address these deeper systemic issues—issues that conservatives believe could be mitigated through market-driven reforms.

Expanding the ACA: Empty Promises and Vague Plans

Photo by Павел Сорокин

Harris often speaks about expanding the ACA to ensure more Americans have access to affordable healthcare. But when pressed for details, her plans remain vague and undefined. She has thrown her support behind initiatives championed by President Biden, including expanding subsidies to middle-income families and capping premiums at 8.5% of household income.

However, conservatives argue that expanding subsidies is a temporary solution, not a long-term fix. Harris’s proposal to continue and expand ACA subsidies under the American Rescue Plan may sound like a step forward, but it merely prolongs the current system’s underlying issues. Subsidizing premiums is not a substitute for real reform, and it doesn’t address the fundamental problems of rising healthcare costs. Instead, it shifts the financial burden from individual consumers to taxpayers, creating a system where government intervention continues to grow without solving the root causes of inefficiency and price inflation.

The Temporary Nature of ACA Premium Reductions

This brings us to one of the core issues with Harris’s healthcare record: the ACA premium reductions she touts were not the result of lasting policy changes. Rather, they were temporary measures enacted through the Biden-Harris administration’s American Rescue Plan in response to the pandemic.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021, temporarily increased subsidies for individuals and families buying insurance on the ACA marketplace. It expanded eligibility and capped premiums, ensuring that no household would spend more than 8.5% of their income on insurance. These changes helped lower premiums for millions of Americans during a time of economic instability.

However, these premium reductions were designed as emergency relief measures, not permanent fixes. The increased subsidies are set to expire, and without congressional action to extend them, healthcare premiums will likely return to pre-pandemic levels, leaving many Americans facing higher costs once again. In essence, Harris is claiming credit for a temporary solution that doesn’t address the systemic problems driving high healthcare costs.

A conservative critique could focus on the fact that Harris’s defense of these short-term subsidies ignores the long-term fiscal implications of expanding government spending. Instead of relying on temporary financial assistance, conservatives argue for market-based solutions that increase competition, lower costs, and reduce the need for such heavy government intervention. Without a long-term strategy for reform, Harris’s healthcare “victories” appear fleeting at best.

Removing Medical Debt from Credit Reports: An Overstated Achievement

Another bold claim Harris makes is that as Vice President, she removed medical debt from credit reports. In reality, this policy change was not the result of executive action by the Biden-Harris administration but rather a decision made by the three major credit reporting agencies—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—in 2022. These agencies announced that paid-off medical debt would no longer appear on credit reports, and medical debt under $500 would also be excluded.

While Harris and other lawmakers did exert pressure on the industry to address the financial burdens of medical debt, it’s misleading to credit her with single-handedly removing this debt from credit reports. Conservatives could argue that this is another example of Harris overstating her influence. Furthermore, removing medical debt from credit reports, while helpful for many Americans, does not address the underlying issues of why medical debt is so pervasive in the first place—rising healthcare costs and lack of affordability.

The Broader Conservative Critique: A System in Need of Reform

Taken together, these claims from Harris paint a picture of a politician who has been content to defend a broken system rather than pursue meaningful reform. From a conservative perspective, Harris’s healthcare approach relies too heavily on government intervention, subsidies, and temporary fixes, while ignoring the deeper systemic problems that drive high healthcare costs.

While temporary subsidies may offer short-term relief, they are not sustainable without substantial government spending, which could lead to higher taxes and increased national debt. Moreover, expanding the ACA without addressing its inefficiencies—such as the lack of competition, rising premiums, and limited choices—only serves to perpetuate the current system’s problems.

Conclusion

Kamala Harris has made bold claims about her role in healthcare reform, but upon closer examination, many of her achievements seem overstated or based on temporary measures. From blocking insurance mergers as California’s Attorney General to defending the ACA and promoting temporary subsidies as a senator and vice president, Harris has relied on stopgap solutions rather than the long-term reform our healthcare system desperately needs.

Conservatives argue that instead of doubling down on a system that has already shown its flaws, we should be looking for market-driven solutions that increase competition, lower costs, and reduce the need for government intervention. Harris’s healthcare approach, while politically expedient, does little to solve the real problems facing American consumers today.

References:

  1. California AG and Big Pharma
    Harris’s role in suing Purdue Pharma and blocking insurance mergers:

  2. Kamala Harris and ACA Defense
    Her opposition to ACA repeal efforts:

  3. ACA Premium Reductions
    The temporary nature of ACA premium cuts:

  4. Medical Debt Removal
    Credit agencies removing medical debt from reports:

A New Way Forward or Corporate Compromise? Kamala Harris’ Approach to Business and Reform

  By ,

Kamala Harris has framed her campaign around fighting for fairness and holding corporations accountable, particularly in the fourth item of her A New Way Forward plan. However, her reliance on corporate donations raises questions about whether her promises to crack down on big business are genuine or simply feel-good campaign rhetoric.

Big Business Donations and Potential Conflicts of Interest

One of the most glaring contradictions in Harris’ platform is her acceptance of big business donations while publicly denouncing corporate power. For example, Blackstone, the largest corporate landlord in the U.S., has been linked to rent hikes and housing affordability issues, yet Harris’ campaign has received significant contributions from Jonathan Gray, the company’s president ​(Sludge). Since Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, Harris has amassed nearly $500 million, with a substantial portion coming from large corporate donors​ (Democracy Now!).

This raises a crucial question: can a candidate who relies on corporate donations truly deliver on promises to crack down on corporate greed? Or is this just another feel-good campaign promise designed to appeal to voters without any meaningful action behind it? Harris’ ability to navigate this duality will be under scrutiny, especially as she proposes to tackle anti-competitive practices while simultaneously receiving support from those very corporations she aims to regulate.

For-Profit Colleges: Enforcement Without Lasting Reform

While serving as California’s Attorney General, Harris made headlines for her efforts against for-profit colleges, particularly Corinthian Colleges. She secured large settlements for defrauded students, positioning herself as a protector of the vulnerable. However, her actions largely stopped at enforcement—no lasting legislative changes followed. Despite her aggressive pursuit of these institutions, for-profit colleges continued to operate under much the same conditions, with no federal policy reforms put in place to prevent future abuses.

This lack of follow-through raises questions about whether Harris can effect meaningful change beyond reactive enforcement. Critics argue that her tenure in this role was marked by high-profile settlements that garnered media attention but did not fundamentally alter the landscape for students seeking quality education .

If her presidency mirrors her time as Attorney General, voters should temper their expectations for sweeping changes. Harris’ track record suggests a tendency toward a reactive rather than proactive approach, leaving many to wonder if she can transition from enforcement actions to genuine legislative reforms.

Lobbying and Industry Ties: A Compromised Agenda?

Harris’ financial support from industries she claims to regulate—such as Big Pharma—also casts doubt on her ability to enact real reform. While Harris has railed against rising drug prices, the reality is that prices in the pharmaceutical industry have largely stayed in line with inflation . Despite this, Harris has continued to receive donations from powerful pharmaceutical companies, raising the question of whether her regulatory efforts will be watered down by these financial ties.

This duality of advocacy and acceptance of contributions creates a complex narrative for Harris. While she might aim to position herself as a champion for the average consumer, her actions—and their potential consequences—may paint a different picture altogether . This dynamic between rhetoric and reality is a recurring theme in her campaign and legislative history.

Comparisons with Other Politicians

Harris’ approach to corporate donations and her ability to follow through on promises starkly contrasts with that of other political figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders, in particular, has built his political brand on rejecting large corporate donations, relying instead on small-dollar contributions from grassroots supporters. His refusal to take corporate money stands as a benchmark for independence from corporate influence, and his policies often reflect a commitment to address systemic issues head-on .

Warren has similarly distanced herself from big corporate donors, maintaining a clear message of rejecting corporate power in politics. Her proposals often come with detailed plans to regulate industries and protect consumers, showcasing a commitment to substantive reform rather than superficial gestures .

In comparison, Harris’ heavy reliance on corporate contributions creates a cloud of doubt around her true intentions. Can a candidate who depends on the financial backing of industries she claims to fight against truly deliver the reforms voters seek? This question becomes even more pressing as she outlines her plans for a presidency focused on anti-competitive practices and consumer protection.

Harris’ Legislative Record: Enforcement Without Policy Change

When examining Harris’ legislative history, a pattern of enforcement over policy change becomes evident. Her tenure as California’s Attorney General was marked by lawsuits and settlements rather than legislative victories. Though she succeeded in cracking down on specific instances of corporate wrongdoing, these actions did not translate into broader reforms .

As President, Harris may face similar challenges. While she can direct her administration to pursue enforcement actions, the absence of legislative change could mean that any progress made will be temporary, without lasting impact. Voters should be aware that her track record suggests a focus on reactive measures rather than proactive policy changes .

The implications of this approach extend beyond mere campaign promises. If Harris continues to rely on the same enforcement-first strategy, the potential for real change in the corporate landscape may remain elusive.

The Role of Small Businesses

Harris claims her administration will support small businesses through seed funding and initiatives designed to foster entrepreneurship. This approach sounds promising, yet it poses the question of whether her administration can strike a balance between regulating large corporations and supporting smaller enterprises. Critics argue that excessive regulations could inadvertently stifle the very businesses Harris aims to uplift .

Additionally, the effectiveness of seed funding initiatives will largely depend on how they are implemented. If her administration fails to ensure equitable access to these funds, the impact may be limited, leaving small businesses struggling to compete against larger, well-established corporations.

Conclusion: The Politics of Rhetoric

Kamala Harris has built her campaign on promises to crack down on corporate greed, protect consumers, and support small businesses. However, her record and financial backing tell a different story. From her reliance on large corporate donations to her limited legislative achievements, it seems that Harris’ promises may be more about political theater than about meaningful reform.

As voters consider Harris for the presidency, they must weigh her rhetoric against her actions. Will she be the champion for everyday Americans she claims to be, or will her presidency mirror her past: enforcement without lasting change?

References:

  1. Harris’ campaign donations and ties to Blackstone and Jonathan Gray: Blaze Media article on Harris’ corporate donations​(Sludge)
  2. Harris’ campaign funding post-Biden withdrawal: Politico coverage of Harris’ campaign finances​(Democracy Now!)
  3. Harris’ actions against Corinthian Colleges and for-profit education: Los Angeles Times report on Harris’ for-profit college case
  4. Big Pharma donations to Harris: Stat News article on Harris’ Big Pharma ties
  5. Bernie Sanders’ stance on corporate donations: Vox article on Sanders’ grassroots funding model
  6. Elizabeth Warren’s approach to corporate influence: The Atlantic article on Warren’s campaign
  7. Harris’ record as Attorney General: New York Times profile of Harris’ tenure as AG
  8. Overview of small business support initiatives: Forbes article on small business initiatives in Harris’ plan