Even the Washington Post doesn’t believe in Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to impose socialist price controls on food.
The longtime left-leaning newspaper is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. A scathing editorial He blasted the Democratic presidential candidate for claiming that price gouging is causing inflation and offering only “populist tactics” rather than a legitimate plan to solve it.
With food prices rising by more than 20% nationwide under the Biden-Harris administration, Harris announced her economic policies for her first 100 days in office at a rally in North Carolina early Friday, which includes implementing government price controls on food.
“level[ing] The Post wrote that while the vice president “disagrees with voters” and that “the 2021 inflation surge is due primarily to supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and that Federal Reserve policies supported by the Biden-Harris administration have been effective in keeping inflation in check,” he “chose a less forthright approach by blaming big business.”
Bezos, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, bought the paper in 2013 but took a more active role in its running last year.
The billionaire’s powerful portfolio, which includes e-commerce giant Amazon and the Whole Foods Market chain, would likely be affected by Harris’ pro-communist policy proposals, such as enforcing federal anti-price gouging laws through the Federal Trade Commission, including imposing steep fines on companies that charge exorbitant prices.
“Harris says she will target companies that are making ‘excessive’ profits, whatever that means,” the editorial board roared.
But she slammed the idea of giving first-time home buyers $25,000 for a down payment, saying it “risks putting upward pressure on prices”.
“Thankfully, Harris’ tactic drew an almost immediate skeptical response, with many critics pointing to President Richard M. Nixon’s failed price controls in the 1970s. It remains to be seen whether Harris’ proposal will gain support from voters, but it won’t if sound economic analysis remains important.”
The editorial board was more favorable about Harris’ housing plan, saying it was “built on a somewhat solid foundation” and calling her tax incentives “sensible.”
“These measures might make sense if Harris paid for them by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and other demand-side housing subsidies that drain federal revenue to the tune of roughly $30 billion a year and benefit many wealthy Americans, but she won’t do that,” the paper wrote.
He said Harris’ “firmest position” is her proposal to increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600 per child, in addition to other tax breaks.
The Harris campaign did not immediately return a message.
