Tag: Economy

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/

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

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

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

Why the Harris-Walz Tax Plan Will Harm the Economy and Middle-Class Americans

  By ,

 

The key elements of the Harris-Walz tax plan are designed around restoring and expanding two major tax credits: the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Additionally, they aim to raise taxes on high earners and corporations by rolling back Trump-era tax cuts and increasing capital gains taxes for wealthier Americans. Specifically, the Harris-Walz plan proposes to:

            • Expand the Child Tax Credit to provide a $6,000 tax cut to families with newborns.
            • Restore and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families.
            • Raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, reversing Trump’s tax cuts, enacting a billionaire minimum tax, and increasing taxes on stock buybacks.

While this plan might seem beneficial on the surface, a deeper analysis reveals a significant issue: these tax cuts and credits come at the expense of the very policies that foster long-term economic growth. Rather than focusing on stimulating job creation and promoting business investment, the Harris-Walz platform is built on redistribution, which has historically done little to create sustainable economic prosperity.

Tax Credits Don’t Solve the Real Problem

Tax credits, such as the CTC and EITC, have been central to many liberal tax plans. Harris and Walz are doubling down on this approach, but it is important to understand that tax credits do not stimulate real economic growth. While they provide temporary financial relief to families, they do not address the larger systemic issues that encourage job creation, business investment, and wage growth.

  • Impact on Investment: One of the most damaging aspects of the Harris-Walz tax plan is the proposed increase in capital gains taxes, particularly the hike to 28% for those earning over $1 million. Capital gains taxes are essentially a tax on investment, and when you increase the tax burden on those making these investments, you discourage them from taking risks and putting their money into businesses. This leads to reduced economic activity, fewer new businesses, and ultimately, fewer jobs. Wealthy investors are crucial to driving innovation, creating startups, and growing the economy. Without them, the economy stalls.
  • Impact on Job Creation: Similarly, Harris and Walz’s plan to reverse Trump-era tax cuts for businesses will hurt job creation. When businesses are faced with higher taxes, they are left with fewer resources to invest in hiring, expanding, or increasing wages for their workers. Rather than providing an incentive for businesses to grow and create more jobs, this plan imposes additional costs on them, limiting their ability to hire more workers. This will ultimately harm the middle class, who depend on these businesses for employment.

The Trump Tax Cuts Spurred Economic Growth—Reversing Them Would Set Us Back

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. saw a period of robust economic growth thanks in large part to tax reforms aimed at reducing the tax burden on individuals and businesses. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, creating a more competitive business environment, which encouraged domestic and international investment. Additionally, it reduced income taxes across the board, allowing more Americans to keep a larger portion of their income and spurring consumer spending. According to the Tax Foundation, the Trump tax cuts led to significant business expansion, wage growth, and job creation .

Reversing these tax cuts, as proposed by Harris and Walz, would set us back. By increasing the corporate tax rate and raising taxes on capital gains, the Harris-Walz tax plan would undo much of the economic progress made in recent years. Businesses, particularly small businesses that benefited from Trump’s tax cuts, would face higher operating costs, limiting their ability to expand, hire, and innovate.

Furthermore, the reduced corporate tax rate was instrumental in attracting foreign investment to the U.S., making it a more competitive destination for global businesses. By increasing taxes, the Harris-Walz plan would make the U.S. less attractive to these businesses, leading to reduced investment and fewer job opportunities for Americans. The American Enterprise Institute noted that lowering corporate taxes increases GDP growth by creating a more favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship .

The Harris-Walz Tax Plan Could Fuel Inflation

Another major concern with the Harris-Walz tax plan is its potential to further fuel inflation. Their expanded tax credits for families may sound like a welcome relief, but it will inject more money into the economy at a time when inflation is already a significant issue. As we’ve seen in recent years, when there’s an increase in demand for goods and services without a corresponding increase in supply, prices go up.

  1. Higher Consumer Prices: The Harris-Walz tax plan includes significant tax hikes for businesses, particularly those that rely on investment to grow. Faced with higher taxes, these companies will pass the additional costs onto consumers. As businesses increase prices to cover their tax liabilities, middle-class families will end up paying more for everyday goods and services, effectively canceling out the benefits of the tax credits they receive.
  2. Inflationary Pressures: The expanded tax credits will also put more disposable income into the hands of consumers, increasing demand for goods and services. However, with businesses facing higher taxes, the supply side of the economy won’t be able to keep up. The result? Higher prices across the board. This inflationary cycle will hit working families the hardest, as their purchasing power will erode in the face of rising costs for everything from groceries to gasoline .

Reagan’s Warning: Government Has a Spending Problem

While the Harris-Walz tax plan focuses on raising revenue by increasing taxes, it completely ignores one of the most important factors contributing to our economic challenges: government spending. As President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government doesn’t tax too little; it spends too much.” This is truer today than ever before. The national debt has ballooned to over $33 trillion, and much of that is due to uncontrolled government spending.

Rather than focusing on cutting taxes and reducing the size of government, the Harris-Walz plan proposes new programs and expanded tax credits that will require even more government spending. This will only exacerbate the debt crisis, leading to higher interest payments and fewer resources available for critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The National Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

One of the most alarming aspects of the Harris-Walz tax plan is that it does nothing to address the rapidly growing national debt. In fact, by expanding tax credits and proposing new government programs, their plan would only add to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt has nearly doubled in the past decade, reaching unsustainable levels. Without significant cuts to government spending, we are heading towards a fiscal crisis that will have long-term consequences for future generations.

Conservatives believe that fiscal responsibility is the key to long-term economic stability. Rather than raising taxes to fund more government programs, we need to focus on reducing spending, balancing the budget, and reducing the national debt. The Harris-Walz plan, by ignoring these issues, is simply kicking the can down the road and placing a heavier burden on future generations.

The Conservative Solution: Empowering the Private Sector

Conservatives understand that economic growth comes from empowering the private sector, not expanding government control. Instead of expanding government programs and increasing taxes, we should focus on policies that allow businesses to thrive, create jobs, and raise wages. The conservative approach to tax policy is built on the following principles:

  • Lowering Taxes for Individuals and Businesses: When individuals and businesses are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money, they are more likely to invest, expand, and innovate. This leads to higher wages, more job opportunities, and overall economic growth. Rather than penalizing success with higher taxes, we should be encouraging entrepreneurship and investment.
  • Cutting Government Spending: The key to reducing the national debt and stabilizing the economy isn’t raising taxes—it’s cutting unnecessary government spending. By reducing the size of government, we can lower the tax burden on Americans and ensure that future generations aren’t saddled with unsustainable debt. Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the cornerstones of conservative economic policy.
  • Encouraging Investment and Innovation: By keeping taxes on investment low, we create an environment where businesses can grow, innovate, and create jobs. Instead of raising capital gains taxes and discouraging investment, we should be incentivizing wealthy individuals to invest in new ventures, which leads to job creation and economic prosperity for all Americans.

Conclusion: The Harris-Walz Tax Plan is the Wrong Path Forward

While the Harris-Walz tax plan promises middle-class relief, its real-world consequences will harm the very people it claims to help. By raising taxes on businesses and investors, discouraging job creation, and fueling inflation, their policies will stifle economic growth. Conservatives know that the path to a prosperous future lies in lowering taxes, cutting government spending, and empowering the private sector to do what it does best: create jobs and grow the economy.

References:

  1. Tax Foundation – Economic Impact of Capital Gains Tax
  2. National Bureau of Economic Research – Investment and Taxes
  3. Heritage Foundation – Impact of Corporate Taxes
  4. Tax Foundation – Analysis of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
  5. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis – Causes of Inflation

Trump’s Booming Economy vs. Biden’s Inflation Crisis – Trump or Harris has the better plan?

  By , ,

Top 10 Economic Metrics for Comparing Biden and Trump

1. GDP Growth

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The U.S. economy saw consistent growth with a 2.3% increase in GDP. Pre-COVID, Trump’s policies—particularly tax cuts and deregulation—were credited with stimulating economic expansion.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The GDP is recovering post-COVID but at a slower rate compared to Trump’s third year. Growth was around 2.1% amid inflation concerns and the Fed’s aggressive interest rate hikes.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, as his year avoided inflation spikes and had steady growth without the high levels of economic uncertainty.

2. Inflation

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Inflation was stable and low, consistently below 2%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Inflation reached 40-year highs in 2022 before easing slightly in 2023. Although it has come down, it still remains elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better with low inflation during his tenure.

3. Unemployment Rate

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Unemployment was at a 50-year low of 3.5%. The tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks were credited with boosting business confidence and hiring.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Unemployment is relatively low at 3.8%, although there are concerns about labor force participation and the number of people working part-time for economic reasons.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better as his policies had led to historically low unemployment without inflation concerns.

4. Labor Force Participation

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The labor force participation rate was 63.2%, showing signs of improvement after a decade of decline.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Participation has not fully rebounded post-pandemic and remains around 62.8%.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better in driving up labor force engagement.

5. Wage Growth

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Real wages grew at a steady pace, with significant gains for lower-income workers.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): While nominal wages have risen, inflation has eroded much of those gains, leading to stagnation in real wage growth.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, as inflation didn’t undercut wage gains.

6. Stock Market Performance

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The stock market experienced a robust bull run, with the S&P 500 gaining around 28.9%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The market is volatile with concerns over rising interest rates, inflation, and a potential recession. S&P growth was around 7% YTD, below Trump’s third year.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better, with stronger investor confidence and returns.

7. Federal Debt and Deficit

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The deficit rose to $984 billion due to the tax cuts and increased military spending, but overall debt-to-GDP was stable around 79%.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The national debt crossed $33 trillion, with higher deficits exacerbated by post-COVID spending, Ukraine aid, and domestic programs. Debt-to-GDP ratio is over 120%.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better in managing debt relative to GDP, though both faced challenges.

8. Energy Independence

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): The U.S. became a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades, driven by deregulation and support for fossil fuel industries.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Biden’s administration has emphasized green energy, leading to concerns over energy prices and domestic oil production. Energy independence has decreased.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better by bolstering energy independence through traditional energy sources.

9. Business Confidence and Investment

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Business confidence was high, driven by corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which also boosted capital investment.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): Business confidence is weaker, with concerns over higher taxes, inflation, and regulatory uncertainty, especially around environmental policy.
  • Verdict: Trump performed better due to his pro-business policies.

10. Trade Deficits

  • Trump Year 3 (2019): Despite his trade war with China, the overall trade deficit grew slightly. However, Trump’s tariffs were meant to protect American jobs, especially in manufacturing.
  • Biden Year 3 (2023): The trade deficit has widened further, though part of this is due to supply chain disruptions and post-COVID recovery dynamics.
  • Verdict: Neither performed exceptionally well, but Trump’s protectionist stance aimed at boosting domestic industry, while Biden’s policies haven’t stemmed the growing deficit.

Kamala Harris’s Economic Plans (if any)

As Vice President, Kamala Harris has focused largely on areas like healthcare, voting rights, and social justice, but there have been few specifics about her independent economic policies. However, as part of the Biden administration, Harris generally supports:

  1. Furthering Green Energy Initiatives: Harris backs investment in renewable energy as a key plank of the administration’s economic approach. She supports policies designed to move the U.S. away from fossil fuels, although these have met with criticism from conservatives over potential job losses in the energy sector.
  2. Expanded Childcare and Social Programs: Harris has been a strong advocate for programs aimed at improving childcare access and affordability, which she argues will allow more parents, particularly women, to participate in the workforce.
  3. Taxation: Harris supports Biden’s tax plan, which seeks to increase taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans. Critics argue this could hurt business investment and job creation.

In summary, Harris lacks a clearly articulated economic platform beyond her role in the Biden administration’s policies, which center on climate change and equity.

Trump’s Economic Plan for 2024

Donald Trump, seeking to return to the presidency, has outlined several key elements for his economic plan should he win the election in 2024:

  1. Tax Cuts 2.0: Trump has signaled his desire for another round of tax cuts, particularly aimed at middle-income Americans and businesses to drive investment, growth, and job creation.
  2. Deregulation: Trump has consistently advocated for reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, especially in industries like energy and manufacturing, to promote growth. He has been critical of Biden’s green energy policies, pledging to restore America’s energy dominance.
  3. America First Trade Policies: Trump would likely continue his “America First” trade policy, aiming to renegotiate trade deals and reduce the U.S. reliance on China. This could involve tariffs or other protectionist measures to strengthen domestic manufacturing.
  4. Cutting Government Spending: Trump has talked about addressing the national debt and deficit by reducing government spending, although specifics on which areas would face cuts are still unclear. His past approach focused more on growing the economy than making cuts.
  5. Energy Independence: Trump would push for renewed domestic fossil fuel production, cutting back on the Biden administration’s regulations on oil and gas to restore the U.S. as a net energy exporter.

In summary, Trump’s plan emphasizes tax cuts, deregulation, energy independence, and trade policies to drive economic growth, contrasting with Biden-Harris’s focus on green energy and social spending.

Conclusion

From a conservative perspective, Trump’s third year was stronger economically across most metrics compared to Biden’s third year. The key areas of GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, business confidence, and energy independence all favored Trump. Moving forward, Harris’s economic focus aligns with Biden’s policies but lacks a detailed independent platform, while Trump’s economic proposals suggest a return to the pro-business, deregulation, and tax-cutting agenda that defined his first term.