I ran against Kamala Harris in California. She was wrong about the economy then and she’s still wrong today
Kamala Harris didn't know about the economy when she ran for Senate in California. She's still wrong. She views world like government should decide everything through regulation.
Vice President Kamala Harris jumped at the chance to run for president. Despite the passage of months, however, Harris has no real answer on the issue of inflation. That is no accident, and there are three main reasons why.
First, Harris has no experience in economics – her only experience is in government.
Harris has no private-sector experience. Quite to the contrary, her entire career has been in government: from the district attorney’s office to the attorney general’s office, to senator, to vice president. It is a remarkable rise to be sure – but it comes with an important warning.
STRIKING BOEING WORKERS BOO AFTER DEMOCRATIC SEN. MARIA CANTWELL CRITICIZES TRUMP
Harris thinks government first. Her plans are uniformly based on government action. She believes government should direct the economy through regulation, targeted tax benefits and the like. She is a true proponent of a government-directed "industrial policy."
None of that should come as a surprise. Her upbringing was at the hands of a professor, who many have said is a Marxist, and who wrote a book called "Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution." So, it also should be no surprise that Harris has said many times that government policy should be geared toward equality of outcome.
Second, Harris does not want to acknowledge inflation’s cause because it is an indictment of the Biden administration.
The inflation America suffered under Biden was caused by the extended period of time that the American governments, largely determined by the individual states, shut down a huge percentage of the economy, at the same time, the spending by those governments, especially the federal government, rose dramatically.
Further, and importantly, the very high post-COVID-19 government spending continued after the economy was back on its feet. Compounding all of that was the renewed war on energy at the hands of the Biden-Harris administration.
Therefore, and for obvious political reasons, Harris refuses to acknowledge any of the Biden-Harris economic failures even though Obama economist Jason Furman said the Biden-Harris $1.9 trillion spending program "added kerosene to what was already a fire."
As long as the national debt continues to rise, fueled by $2-trillion annual deficits, and as long as government restricts output, high inflation will never be far away. Think of it as a smoldering fire that is occasionally doused but never extinguished. Only reducing government spending as a percentage of the economy will truly result in long-term inflation reduction.
Third, Harris’ wants to increase spending – dramatically.
The real problem for Harris is that she wants government to spend more. No one believes that Harris would cut federal spending. Indeed, if Harris had a Democrat House and Senate, total spending would likely rise dramatically.
That prediction is easy to make given Harris was the most liberal voting senator in 2019, the spending record of the Biden-Harris administration, the fact that she cast the tie-breaking Senate votes on spending bills and has said she can’t think of anything she would have done differently as president compared to President Joe Biden.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Given that Harris wants to spend more, Harris blaming spending for inflation is out of the question.
What’s Harris to do in the face of that? She reverts to form.
She blames the rich. She cares about income redistribution and, therefore, she wants to raise taxes on the "rich" and target corporations for price gouging.
Some say that would never occur if she were elected. Nevertheless, it is important to understand who Kamala Harris really is and why she won’t criticize government.
She is a government-first thinker who wants equality of outcome.
The problem is, in history, equality of outcome has only been equality in poverty imposed by government. In Harris’ mind, that just might be her preferred outcome.
