Staff Reports
In the lively world of American politics, two names inevitably come up when discussing the economy: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The ongoing debate about who should wield the reins of economic policy is as heated as a summer barbecue, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Recently, prominent economist and author Steve Moore dove into this debate, shedding light on the economic implications of Kamala Harris’ proposals, which he argues could lead to astronomical increases in national debt.
When one listens to Kamala Harris speak about economic policies, it might sound enticing—free healthcare, free college, and seemingly endless government spending. However, as Moore pointed out, what’s being offered may seem like candy but is more akin to a financial time bomb. With the national debt already at unprecedented levels, the Harris plan is projected to incur an additional $5 trillion in tax increases. This is no small sum; in fact, it could be one of the largest tax hikes in global history. So, how does she plan to fund all these “free” services? The answer is simple: by taxing hardworking Americans into oblivion!
The irony, however, isn’t lost on anyone paying attention. The current Biden-Harris administration has been criticized for skyrocketing the national debt, yet Harris and her supporters continue to attack previous administrations. It seems that pointing fingers is easier than solving problems. For people like Moore, the numbers don’t lie. Under the Biden-Harris regime, spending has been outpaced only by their critics’ incredulity over how such an economic plan could be viable. As anyone with a piggy bank knows, spending what you don’t have rarely ends well.
As if that wasn’t enough, Harris’ proposals aren’t just aimed at individual taxpayers—they also target businesses and essential services. By promoting an extensive Medicare-for-all plan, the Harris administration is risking the very foundation of American healthcare. With the current Medicare system already teetering, expanding it indiscriminately only serves to threaten its sustainability. Families who rely on Medicare could be left in a tight spot, struggling to find the care they need. If Harris gets her way, we might be looking at a future where healthcare becomes as scarce as the last slice of pizza at a party.
Many are also wary of how a government-run healthcare system could infringe on personal freedoms—especially when we look at other countries with universal health systems that are notorious for their long wait times and rationing. Citizens south of the border in Canada are often left fighting an uphill battle when it comes to timely medical care. You’d be better off waiting for the world’s slowest tortoise to cross the finish line than securing a swift treatment. Moore insists that American citizens deserve the freedom to choose their healthcare without the heavy hand of the government dictating terms.
And while Harris claims to stand up for the middle class, Moore argues her proposals could very well bury them deeper into economic hardship. Families are feeling the pinch at diner tables across the country, worrying about rising gas prices, inflation, and the ever-increasing grocery bills. These are real issues impacting everyday Americans, yet it seems the policies proposed by Harris could exacerbate, rather than alleviate, these struggles. Voters looking for a palatable choice for their financial future may want to reconsider throwing their support behind policies that could end up being more troubles than they’re worth.
In the end, no matter how sugar-coated the proposals may appear, the underlying reality is sobering. Individuals who are seeking constructive change should carefully evaluate the potential implications of the Harris economic plan—not just for themselves but for the nation at large. With a hefty price tag on the horizon, America might want to take heed of these warnings before signing up for a fiscal rollercoaster with no brakes in sight.
