The Washington Post editorial board on Friday slammed Vice President Harris’ newly announced economic policies as a “populist ploy.”
“Vice President Kamala Harris’ speech on Friday was an opportunity for her to tell voters specifically how she will manage an economy that many feel is not working,” the committee said. Written “Unfortunately, instead of offering a substantive plan, she has wasted time on populist gimmickry,” it said in an editorial on Friday.
Harris formally unveiled her economic plan at a rally in North Carolina on Friday, which includes a wide range of economic policies, including child and homeowner tax credits and a federal ban on unfair food price gouging.
The agenda focuses on the economy, seen as a key policy issue in the 2024 presidential election, and the campaign said Harris’ proposals would be a priority for her first 100 days in the White House.
Harris’s desire to inspire Americans in the face of rising inflation was not met with the editorial board of The Washington Post, which acknowledged that Harris needed to be price-conscious but accused her of scapegoating the problem.
“One way to address this issue might be to tell voters bluntly that inflation soared in 2021 primarily because the pandemic disrupted supply chains, and that Federal Reserve policies supported by the Biden-Harris administration have slowed inflation,” they wrote. “Instead, the vice president has chosen a less blunt approach by blaming big corporations.”
Among her announced policies is a ban on price gouging, and Harris said the Federal Trade Commission would go after companies in the grocery industry. The editorial specifically called the proposal “vaguely defined” and unclear what excessive profits mean in an industry with relatively low profit margins.
But the editorial board praised many of Harris’ plans. She touted her plan to build 3 million new homes over the next four years and address the nation’s housing shortage crisis. She also supported an increase in the child tax credit as a “highly effective anti-poverty measure” and an expansion of tax cuts for low-income “frontline workers” without children.
While the committee supported those policies, it also raised concerns about the cost of Harris’ plan, noting that she, like Biden, has vowed not to raise taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year. The editorial cited estimates from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget that the plan as a whole would add $1.7 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
The editorial board acknowledged that each side had made “unfair comments” but reinforced its dislike of Harris’ plan.
“Even by the campaign’s economically pandering standards, however, Harris’ speech on Friday was disappointing,” the article concludes.
