Staff Reports
Kamala Harris decided to take the gloves off during the latest presidential debate, launching a barrage of economic criticism aimed squarely at Donald Trump. According to Harris, the former president doesn’t have a plan for Americans and merely offers tax breaks for the wealthiest—a classic leftist mantra aimed at discrediting any policy that doesn’t align with their agenda. She touts her approach as an “opportunity economy,” claiming the best economists support her vision for America. However, those who have followed economic trends know that when the facts are unpacked, her claims often fall apart like a house of cards.
For starters, when discussing the economy, it’s essential to remember that Trump left the current administration with an inflation rate of a measly 1.4 percent. Yes, that number is low enough to make Harris look a bit desperate when she claims Trump would worsen the economy. The public is also not buying what she is selling; a slew of polls indicate that voters still trust Trump more on economic issues than Biden and Harris. They seem to prefer the former president’s results over the managed chaos of the current administration.
🚨Wow. Kamala Harris admits how much her terrible economy has crushed the American people:
“The cost of living in America is still just too high. You know it, and I know it.”
— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) September 25, 2024
The blind spots in Harris’ argument were glaring enough to catch the attention of Goldman Sachs’ CEO, David Solomon. He stepped up to clear the air, pointing out that Harris exaggerated the positive implications of a report tied to their analysis. Solomon noted she conveniently left out that the distinction between her plan and Trump’s amounts to a negligible difference—just two-tenths of one percent. But facts don’t seem to be a strong suit for the Democrats these days, making it all too easy for them to play fast and loose with the truth.
When it comes to the Wharton School’s take on her economic agenda, one can’t help but notice the lack of support for her assertions. An independent review of the Penn Wharton Budget Model found no positive impact from her plans, while it confirmed that Trump’s proposals might very well lead to an increase in GDP. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if the Wharton folks refute your ideas, maybe it’s time to rethink your strategy.
Adding to the mounting evidence against her economic narrative, the Tax Foundation weighed in with their own independent analysis, reporting that Harris’s tax plan—which her allies have touted as a boon to the economy—would actually reduce GDP growth and depress wages. It’s almost comical that the IRS union tends to support her, given that her approach to taxation seems more aligned with increasing government scope than fostering economic growth.
As if that weren’t enough, consumer confidence recently took a hit, revealing the weakest numbers seen in years. This barely registers on Harris’ radar, as she feebly defends her poorly articulated economic policies while her supporters struggle to present even a coherent vision. It feels almost pitiable watching her surrogates squirm on television when pressed about Harris’s plans—there’s only so much spinning one can do before running out of excuses.
In conclusion, the economic debate is filled with smoke and mirrors from the Harris camp, with data consistently undermining their assertions. It seems that while they scramble to build a solid argument, the reality is that the former president’s policies created stability and growth; a fact that Democrats can’t wave away with fanciful claims and half-baked testimonials. The electoral landscape looks increasingly treacherous for Harris, as more voters begin to see through her economic charade.
