Kamala’s Media Honeymoon Is DONE!

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has often basked in media praise since becoming the Democrat Party’s presidential nominee, is now facing a wave of criticism following her recent policy proposal. Harris’s introduction of a Soviet-style anti-price gouging plan last week has led to backlash, even from some of her most ardent media allies.

The Washington Post, typically known for its support of Democratic policies, didn’t hold back in its critique. The newspaper’s Editorial Board published an opinion piece immediately after Harris’s announcement, questioning the effectiveness of her plan.

“Vice President Kamala Harris’s speech Friday was an opportunity to get specific with voters about how a Harris presidency would manage an economy that many feel is not working well for them,” the board stated. “Unfortunately, instead of delivering a substantial plan, she squandered the moment on populist gimmicks.”

The editorial board went on to suggest that Harris could have approached the issue more candidly. “One way to handle it might be to level with voters, telling them that inflation spiked in 2021 mainly because the pandemic snarled supply chains, and that the Federal Reserve’s policies, which the Biden-Harris administration supported, are working to slow it. The vice president instead opted for a less forthright route: Blaming big business.”

The criticism didn’t stop there. CNN’s economics reporter, Elisabeth Buchwald, also weighed in with a scathing analysis. Buchwald pointed out that the Biden-Harris administration has overseen a significant rise in food prices, leaving many Americans struggling to stretch their budgets at the grocery store. Harris’s proposed solution—a federal ban on price gouging across the food industry—was met with skepticism by Buchwald.

Buchwald highlighted Harris’s intention to penalize “opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” but quickly noted potential flaws in the proposal. “There’s just one issue: Harris’ proposal could create more problems than the one it’s trying to solve, some economists say,” Buchwald reported. Gavin Roberts, an economist who studied state-level anti-price gouging laws during the pandemic, observed that such laws often lead to unintended consequences, particularly in grocery stores.

Roberts explained, “One of the biggest effects he observed, especially at grocery stores, was that these laws motivated people ‘to go buy goods more than they would if prices had risen.’” He further added, “When prices are high, in most cases, the best policy action in response is actually taking no action. That would cause consumers who are deterred by, say, high prices of beef, to instead purchase another type of meat or protein. That helps keep beef on the grocery store shelves for people who want it enough to pay the higher prices.”

Roberts also disputed Harris’s claim that her proposal would increase competition in the food industry. “And while Harris claims her proposal ‘will help the food industry become more competitive,’ Roberts said it would do just the opposite. ‘It’s more likely to maintain that status quo,’ he said because it would keep new competition from moving in to take advantage of the bigger profit margins—competition that could have helped lower prices in the long run.”

Critics from various backgrounds have raised concerns about the viability of Harris’s plan. Former Obama administration economist Jason Furman weighed in, offering a grim outlook on the proposal. “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality,” Furman told The New York Times. “There’s no upside here, and there is some downside.”

Adding to the chorus of criticism, Buchwald highlighted that a campaign fact sheet revealed Harris’s intention for “the federal government to identify and take on price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices in the food and grocery industries.” The move, however, has sparked fears of government overreach and potential negative impacts on the economy.

Fox Business host Charles Payne, known for his critical stance on Harris, expressed his dismay over the plan. “It’s a lot, right? I mean, it’s essentially what we’re talking about, this gargantuan big government that controls everything. What we’re talking about is a war on capitalism,” Payne remarked, underscoring the potential dangers of the policy.

Payne went on to emphasize that Harris’s plan reveals a deep-seated distrust of capitalism among some in her political circle. “They really do not believe in capitalism. And to be quite honest, Dave, when I sat down, I heard you talking about how this has surprised some people. I was never… I never bought in that she was shifting her spots, you know,” Payne said, alluding to Harris’s consistent stance against free-market principles.

As the 2024 election approaches, Harris’s anti-price gouging plan has become a flashpoint, drawing fire from both sides of the political spectrum. While the vice president may have intended to rally support among voters concerned about rising costs, her proposal has instead sparked a fierce debate about the role of government in the economy and the potential consequences of heavy-handed intervention.