Tag: Inflation

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

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

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

Kamala Harris’ Small Business Record: More Fiction Than Fact?

  By ,

Kamala Harris has made small business support a cornerstone of her presidential platform, presenting herself as a key advocate for entrepreneurs and innovators. From tripling lending to minority-owned businesses to driving venture capital to rural America, Harris has painted a picture of her leadership in this area as both Senator and Vice President. But how much of this is rooted in fact? A closer examination reveals that many of Harris’ claims are exaggerated or misleading, relying on broad economic trends rather than her direct influence. This post uncovers where Harris’ small business platform falls short, showing that her record is more fiction than fact.

K. Harris

Nathan Howard/AP Photo

Harris’ Leadership on Small Businesses: A Rhetorical Stretch

Kamala Harris claims to have led the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to increase access to capital for small businesses. This gives the impression that she was at the forefront of economic initiatives designed to support entrepreneurs. However, her involvement seems to be more about promotion than policy-making.

The real driving forces behind small business relief during the pandemic were the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Treasury Department, with significant input from Congress. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for example, was established under the CARES Act and expanded by subsequent relief bills. Harris, while a vocal supporter, was not directly responsible for these initiatives. Her claims of leading the effort should be seen as overstated.

Even the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which Harris supported, was a collective legislative achievement. The administration as a whole worked on these programs, and Harris’ specific contributions were largely in promoting them rather than designing or implementing them. If Harris is to be credited for supporting these efforts, it’s in the context of a team effort, not individual leadership.

A Senatorial Record Lacking in Substance for Small Businesses

Harris also claims to have been a champion for small businesses during her time as a U.S. Senator (2017-2021). But a review of her legislative record tells a different story. While Harris co-sponsored a number of bills supporting small business owners, particularly minority and women-owned businesses, she was far from a key player in crafting small business legislation.

Harris served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and focused more on issues like criminal justice reform, not economic policy. While she supported broader Democratic initiatives to assist small businesses, she wasn’t at the forefront of these efforts. Other lawmakers with long-standing roles on the Small Business Committee did more of the heavy lifting when it came to actual policy formation.

For example, Harris co-sponsored the Small Business Access to Capital Act, aimed at expanding lending opportunities for minority businesses, but this was part of a broader legislative package and not unique to her efforts. Simply supporting these initiatives is not the same as spearheading them, and there’s little evidence to suggest that Harris played a leading role in any landmark small business legislation.

The 19 Million Business Applications Claim: A Result of Circumstance, Not Policy

One of the cornerstones of Harris’ economic platform is the claim that the Biden-Harris administration drove 19 million new business applications during their time in office. While the number is accurate, the context behind this surge is less about innovative policy and more about pandemic-driven necessity.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, business applications surged during the pandemic as individuals sought new ways to make a living after job losses or reduced work hours. This wave of entrepreneurship was driven more by economic desperation than by any specific policies Harris promoted. It’s misleading for Harris to take full credit for this surge, which was largely due to external forces rather than direct intervention from her office.

Additionally, the bulk of these applications came from solopreneurs and gig workers—businesses that may not contribute significantly to long-term economic growth. While these applications reflect the resilience of the American spirit, they cannot be fully attributed to Harris’ work in government.

Venture Capital for Middle America: Lofty Promises, Limited Results

Harris’ platform also highlights her efforts to direct venture capital investment to Middle America and rural areas—regions often overlooked by Silicon Valley investors. While this goal is admirable, there is little evidence that Harris has made meaningful progress in this area.

Venture capital typically flows to high-growth industries concentrated in urban innovation hubs like San Francisco, Austin, and New York City. While the Biden administration has promoted programs aimed at supporting rural entrepreneurs, there’s scant data to suggest that significant venture capital investment has been directed to these areas as a direct result of Harris’ involvement. Harris’ rhetoric on this issue outpaces the reality.

The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to distribute more economic resources to underserved areas are commendable, but Harris has not been at the center of these initiatives. Much of the work in driving investment to rural America is part of broader infrastructure and economic programs that she has supported, but not led.

Federal Contracts for Minority-Owned Businesses: A Long-Standing Effort

Another area where Harris claims success is in expanding federal contracts for minority-owned small businesses. The administration has set a goal of increasing federal contracts to small, disadvantaged businesses to 15% by 2025. This goal, while important, is not unique to Harris or the current administration.

Previous administrations, particularly the Obama administration, laid the groundwork for expanding federal contracts to minority businesses. Harris’ support for this effort is part of a larger, ongoing trend that predates her tenure as Vice President. While she may have promoted the initiative, it’s not a new or groundbreaking effort under her leadership.

This claim, like many others, reflects Harris’ tendency to present long-standing government programs as personal achievements. The increase in contracts for minority-owned businesses is a positive step, but it’s part of a larger bipartisan effort that extends across multiple administrations.

Harris’ Distancing from Biden: An Inconsistent Strategy

As Harris gears up for a potential 2024 presidential run, she’s attempting to distance herself from Biden’s policies, yet her platform on small business development is heavily intertwined with the work done under the Biden-Harris administration. This contradiction undermines her attempt to carve out an independent identity.

If Harris is to take credit for the administration’s successes—whether in small business lending, increasing federal contracts, or driving business applications—she must also take responsibility for the policies and failures associated with Biden’s presidency. Trying to promote successes while distancing herself from the administration’s challenges creates an inconsistent narrative that weakens her credibility.

Conclusion: More Fiction Than Fact in Harris’ Small Business Record

Kamala Harris’ platform on small businesses paints her as a leader in driving economic opportunity, but the facts reveal a different story. Many of her claims—whether it’s leading small business efforts during the pandemic, supporting minority-owned businesses, or increasing venture capital in rural America—are exaggerated or lack substantive backing.

While Harris has certainly supported small business initiatives as part of the broader Democratic agenda, her actual leadership role is minimal. Much of the progress she touts can be attributed to larger economic forces or collective efforts by the Biden administration. Her attempts to distance herself from Biden while taking credit for shared accomplishments only further complicates her narrative.

In the end, Harris’ small business record is more fiction than fact. As voters consider her for the presidency, they should take a closer look at the reality behind her claims and ask whether her leadership truly delivered for small businesses—or whether it was just another political talking point.

References:

  • “Paycheck Protection Program” — U.S. Small Business Administration: SBA.gov
  • “American Rescue Plan Act” — U.S. Department of the Treasury: Home.Treasury.gov
  • “Business Applications Surge Amid Pandemic” — U.S. Census Bureau: Census.gov

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

The Impact of Hurricane Helene on the 2024 Election

  By ,

 

As the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene continue to unfold, the political landscape in key states is being reshaped in real-time. While the mainstream media (MSM) has been relatively quiet on the disaster’s impact, conservative voices are raising concerns about how this natural disaster could distort the upcoming election. In this piece, we’ll explore how infrastructure damage in Republican-leaning states may suppress voter turnout, the government’s slow response, and the need for emergency voting measures.

Infrastructure Damage and Voter Turnout

Hurricane Helene has crippled major swathes of the Southeast, including crucial “red” states like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. With polling stations destroyed, roads blocked, and many areas still lacking power, access to in-person voting is going to be a logistical nightmare unless significant recovery steps are taken.

These areas tend to lean conservative, which means that a failure to address these issues could unfairly skew the results. Historically, conservative voters have favored in-person voting over mail-in ballots, making the closure of polling places particularly damaging for Republicans. While liberals might embrace absentee voting as an alternative, conservative voters could be left disenfranchised if solutions aren’t found quickly.

From a conservative standpoint, this disaster highlights the vulnerability of physical voting infrastructure, which we’ve seen compromised in past natural disasters. But why is the response so slow, and how might it affect key conservative strongholds in these states?

Slow Government Response: Is It Incompetence or Lack of Resources?

There’s no question that the government’s response has been far from ideal. FEMA and other federal agencies are delivering food and water, but that’s barely scratching the surface of what’s needed. The lack of military deployment for more critical tasks, such as road clearing and restoring access to polling stations, raises serious concerns. The Army Corps of Engineers, typically relied upon for rebuilding infrastructure after disasters, seems conspicuously absent. The conservative viewpoint here is that this sluggish response might reflect broader issues of bureaucratic inefficiency, or worse, a lack of financial readiness due to mismanaged budgets under the current administration.

Under President Biden and Vice President Harris, we’ve seen a continued expansion of federal spending on a variety of programs, which has raised questions about whether resources for emergency management have been stretched thin. The possibility that this administration simply lacks the funds or the resolve to deploy essential resources to conservative areas could have political consequences. Could the failure to prioritize disaster recovery in red states be deliberate?

Drone Bans and Missteps: Government Blocking Private Efforts

Reports of private citizens attempting to conduct rescue missions and deliver aid have surfaced, only to be thwarted by government intervention. Drone usage, which could be instrumental in search-and-rescue efforts, is reportedly being limited by airspace restrictions, stalling recovery initiatives by private citizens and organizations. In disaster-prone states, conservative communities often rely on themselves and local volunteers, rather than waiting on government handouts. The government’s apparent discouragement of these private efforts only adds to the frustration many feel toward federal overreach. Could this be another example of the administration undercutting self-reliance in favor of centralized control?

Emergency Voting Measures: Are They Enough?

While states have some experience with implementing emergency voting measures after hurricanes, the question remains whether these measures will come fast enough to preserve the integrity of the election. Absentee ballots might offer some relief, but this option presents problems in and of itself. Conservative voters have historically expressed distrust of mail-in voting due to concerns over fraud, making it a less than ideal alternative. If mail-in voting is the only viable solution, conservative voices may again cry foul, alleging election interference by pushing a voting method that favors Democrats.

Temporary polling stations and extended early voting are potential solutions that conservative advocates should push for in these affected areas. However, the pace of the government’s recovery efforts raises doubts about whether these measures will be implemented before Election Day.

The Stakes in Key Red States

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina have consistently been battlegrounds where conservative and liberal forces compete fiercely for dominance. Lower voter turnout in these red states could open the door for Democrats to make gains, particularly in tight races. The 2024 election is not just about the presidency; it’s about the future of Senate control, the makeup of state legislatures, and local governments.

If conservative voters in hurricane-ravaged regions are left without adequate voting access, the Republican Party stands to lose crucial votes in an election already stacked against them due to biased media narratives and unfair pandemic-era voting changes. A low turnout among conservative voters in key areas could tilt the scales in favor of Democrats, potentially altering the national political landscape for years to come.

Government Preparedness and the 2024 Election

It’s worth asking: why was the government so unprepared for Hurricane Helene? As conservatives have argued for years, the government excels at waste and inefficiency while neglecting its core responsibilities—like protecting citizens and preserving the democratic process. Rather than focusing on disaster preparedness, the Biden-Harris administration has been prioritizing expansive federal programs, leaving states vulnerable when real emergencies arise.

The conservative perspective is that this disaster exposes the dangers of bloated government spending on social programs and regulatory overreach while underfunding critical infrastructure and emergency response capabilities. If the administration had focused on building resilient infrastructure and cutting red tape, Hurricane Helene’s damage might not have been so catastrophic.

Conclusion: The Election Hangs in the Balance

Hurricane Helene is not just a natural disaster—it’s a political disaster waiting to happen. For conservative voters, the implications are clear: the slow response, lack of preparedness, and mishandling of emergency measures could jeopardize voter turnout in key states, potentially shifting the election in favor of Democrats.

To prevent this, it’s essential for conservative leaders to push for quick action on restoring infrastructure and implementing emergency voting measures. Without these steps, the 2024 election may be marred by controversy, disenfranchisement, and lost opportunities for Republican voters.

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.