Harris’ Economic proposals:
“Plan for a federal ban on price gouging by food producers and grocers.”
Analysis: There are no details here, but price gouging is already closely monitored, and this is essentially a lawsuit bill. Lawyers will love it, but there is no way to prove price gouging without looking at internal cost numbers, which CEO’s rightfully will never want to show. So lawyers sue, company settles, lawyers rake in fees, costs then added to consumers price.
“Promising to expand the child tax credit to up to $3,600 — and $6,000 for children in their first year of life and enlarge the earned income tax credit to cover people in lower-income jobs without children — which the campaign estimates would cut their effective tax rate by $1,500 — and lower health insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.”
Analysis: This is more of Biden promises, and in some cases, same policy. That’s fine, but there are no detailed plans to pay for it, and no way it passes Congress without those details. Its basically more handing out money during election year promises. If it had any teeth, Harris could have proposed raising the tax rate on higher incomes, but she didn’t; again, election year.
Verdict: Common election year bluster
“Harris is calling for the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years, including tax incentives for buiulders selling to first time homebuyers.”
Analysis: The next time Harris talks about corporate profits, refer back to this, which is lining the profits of large builders, who dominate the housing market. This is the same as handing billions to Elon Musk incentivizing electric car buyers with a free $7500 off.
Additionally, blanket statements like building 3 million new homes means nothing without a concrete budget: building 3 million new homes in CT costs far than in say, backwoods Alabama, where no one wants to live.
Verdict: Corporate gift that helps no one.
“She also wants a $40 billion innovation fund — doubling a similar pot of money created by the Biden administration — for businesses building affordable rental housing units.”
Analysis: If you live in CT, you already know the disaster this would be, with similar funding pouring out cash to corporations at double or triple the unit price of already existing housing. In Branford and in the new Haven area, we can call this the “hand billions to Beacon” law, after the corporate entity raking in hundreds of millions in government dollars for affordable housing. In Branford’s Parkside affordable housing units, the government handed $466,000 per unit to Beacon, more than double what many larger condos were on the market for when it was approved. Harris jacks up the money for Beacon.
“She also wants to expand a Biden administration plan providing $25,000 in potential down payment assistance to help some renters buy a home, so that it will include a much larger swath of first-time home buyers across the country.”
Analysis: This program has helped some people, even locally, but mass expansion of the program defies the basic law of Supply and Demand. Adding more home buyers in the next few years in areas that will not see an equal number of new housing units increases demand for limited supply, thus driving up housing costs.
Verdict: You lower housing costs by increasing supply, or moving buyers to areas where supply outpaces demand. Handing out free cash to drive up demand in already high demand areas, is a disaster waiting to happen and defies basic tenets of economics.
Ultimately, all of what Harris presented is simply bluster, no details or way to fund the plan, and handing out cash for votes.
To view an analysis of Trumps economic proposals, click here.